Johnson v. Dunn, 2:21-cv-01701

Plaintiff Frankie Johnson, an incarcerated individual, accused Defendant Jefferson Dunn (former Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections) and his legal team of submitting two court motions containing fabricated legal citations, allegedly created by ChatGPT.
Three attorneys for Dunn (Reeves, Cranford, Lunsford) admitted the fabricated citations resulted from unverified use of generative AI and acknowledged the misconduct after the court's show cause order.
Butler Snow LLP (the law firm) and individual attorneys undertook internal and independent investigations, confirming no widespread use of AI-generated citations beyond these incidents.
The court found gaps in the direct applicability of Rule 11 (since motions at issue were discovery motions) and Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 (which only covers knowing misstatements), proceeding instead under its inherent authority.
The court examined roles and conduct of each attorney, clearing attorneys Chism and Potter and the firm itself, but finding bad faith or its equivalent in the actions of Reeves, Cranford, and Lunsford.
Sanctions imposed included public reprimand, mandatory disclosure of the order, disqualification from further participation in the case, and referral to state bar authorities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of fabricated citations in court filings	Motions contained fabricated authority, likely via AI	Admitted AI-generated citations, claimed lack of intent	False statements of law made, regardless of intent
Applicability of Rule 11 and Professional Conduct Rules	Motions at issue violate ethical/professional duties	No violation of Rule 11 as motions were for discovery	Rule 11 does not apply; inherent power fills the gap
Individual attorney responsibility for filings	Signatory attorneys responsible for verifying submissions	Supervisors argued reliance on subordinates; vice versa	Each signatory lawyer bears non-delegable responsibility
Appropriate sanctions	Serious, deterrent penalty needed for integrity of system	Firm requested modest sanction, argued isolated event	Public reprimand, disqualification, bar referral imposed

Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (harms of fake opinions in court filings; prior AI citation case)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (inherent power of courts to sanction for litigation abuses)
In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634 (1985) (federal court power to discipline attorneys)
Jones v. Int’l Riding Helmets, Ltd., 49 F.3d 692 (11th Cir. 1995) (Rule 11 requires personal, nondelegable attorney responsibility)
Barnes v. Dalton, 158 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 1998) (bad faith standard for imposition of inherent power sanctions)
Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Ent. Grp., 493 U.S. 120 (1989) (individual responsibility for filings under Rule 11)