Whiting v. City of Athens, Tennessee, Nos. 24-5918/5919/25-5424 (6th Cir. March 13, 2026)

Why This Case Is Important

While not an eDiscovery ruling, this decision serves as a stern warning to legal professionals using AI in legal matters. They have a non-delegable duty to verify the authenticity of all legal citations and factual assertions. As the use of generative AI and automated drafting tools become more prevalent, counsel that fail to provide demonstrable backing for the claims they make–whether in discovery or another stage of the legal process–are risking severe financial and disciplinary penalties. 

Overview

This consolidated appeal arose from several lawsuits filed by Glenn Whiting against the City of Athens, Tennessee, regarding an incident at a 2022 fireworks show. During the appellate process, the Sixth Circuit identified "over two dozen fake citations and misrepresentations of fact" within the briefs submitted by Whiting’s counsel. These errors included citations to cases that did not exist, quotes that did not appear in the cited authorities, and significant distortions of the district court record.

Upon discovering these discrepancies, the court issued a show-cause order requiring the attorneys to explain their cite-checking process and disclose whether generative AI or ghostwriters were used. Rather than responding to the demands in the court order, the attorneys challenged its validity via several objections, including the order was “void on its face for failing to include a signature of an Article III judge,” because it was signed by the Clerk of Court rather than an Article III judge. 

The Sixth Circuit rejected all objections, noting that the attorneys’ conduct had "brought the profession into disrepute” among other admonishments. Meanwhile, the court was burdened because they forced the court to independently verify every citation provided.

Ruling

The court ultimately found the attorneys’ claims leading up to the appeal to be frivolous. The court rejected all four arguments asserted by the attorneys in objection to the show cause order. The court imposed three main sanctions as follows: 1. Attorneys must jointly and severally reimburse appellees in full for their reasonable attorneys’ fees on appeal in all three appeals, 2. Attorneys must jointly and severally pay double costs to appellees for their costs incurred in all three appeals, 3. Each attorney must each separately and individually pay $15,000 to the registry of this court as punitive sanctions for the proceedings in this court in all three appeals.

Verification is a Non-Delegable Duty 

Consistent with many court rulings in recent months, the Sixth Circuit held that citing even a single fake case is sanctionable because no filing should contain citations that a lawyer has not personally "read and verified." So even though the court recognized that some of the cited cases existed and some of the propositions of law were legitimate, the court rejected any notion that even when there is some authority that supports a legal proposition negates the harm caused by false and hallucinated cases.

Distinction Between Frivolous-as-Filed and Frivolous-as-Argued 

The court clarified that under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, an appeal can be sanctioned if it is "frivolous as argued," even if the underlying legal issues might have had nominal merit. In this instance, the attorneys’ misconduct—including "distorting the record" and "inventing case law"—rendered the arguments frivolous. The court emphasized that it must decide cases based on the "arguments actually made," and providing false information to persuade the court is an "abuse of the adversary system".

Application of Inherent Authority for Punitive Sanctions 

Because Rule 38 is often limited to costs and fees, the court invoked its "inherent authority" to fashion a more comprehensive penalty for bad-faith litigation conduct. The sanctions included joint and several liability for the City's full attorneys’ fees and double costs, alongside an individual punitive fine of $15,000 for each lawyer. The court found that these harsh measures were necessary due to "aggravating factors," including the attorneys' refusal to comply with the show-cause order and their history of prior disciplinary issues.

Expert Analysis - Nancy Patton, Esq., CEDS - Senior Director of Solutions Engineering, Exterro

In the past couple of years, AI has catapulted efficiency and new ways of doing business in the legal field with extraordinarily speed and vigor. And with this advent of AI, attorneys are taking full advantage of the shortcuts offered. There is a harsh reality, however. AI is creative and the output must be approached with caution. Humans must verify everything AI suggests. Legal documents containing citations can be fact checked with ease and fake case citations cannot be explained away. When they occur, sanctions can be expected. The courts are growing very impatient.

‍

Case Law Tip

For litigators and corporate legal teams, this ruling underscores that fake citations created by AI are forbidden. Counsel must implement rigorous, human-in-the-loop verification processes for every brief and filing. If you are integrating AI into your workflow, ensure your team follows a strict "Trust but Verify" protocol to avoid career-threatening fallout.