{"id":88899,"topic":"ai","source":"Law Commentary","title":"Federal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases - Law Commentary","url":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule","url_hash":"355459610007daee26c8e42e556f5aa1811787ac","author":"","summary":"Federal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases Law Commentary","content":"A California judge has ordered a lawyer for State Farm to pay $999.99 after finding seven nonexistent case citations in pretrial filings, errors the attorney said stemmed from her use of an artificial intelligence legal research tool.Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth L. Bradley imposed the sanction on Jacquelene Robinson,... Read More »\nFederal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases\nA federal appeals court is moving to tighten its rules on artificial intelligence after judges encountered court filings containing fabricated cases, false quotations and other AI-generated legal errors.\nThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit proposed a new rule September 18 that would require lawyers and self-represented litigants to certify that a human reviewed filings prepared with generative AI before they are submitted to the court.\nUnder the proposal, anyone using generative AI to help prepare a brief, motion or other filing would have to independently verify the authorities cited, check quotations and citations, review the legal analysis and confirm compliance with court rules and professional obligations.\nThe Denver-based court hears federal appeals from Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. If adopted, the change would put a specific human-review requirement into the circuit’s rules as federal courts continue confronting AI-generated mistakes in legal filings.\nThe proposal follows two recent Tenth Circuit cases involving fabricated or inaccurate legal authorities.\nIn February, the court sanctioned Maryland attorney Kusmin L. Amarsingh after finding seven nonexistent cases in a brief filed in an appeal involving Frontier Airlines. Judges also found two real decisions that did not support the quotations or legal arguments attributed to them.\nAmarsingh acknowledged using ChatGPT while researching and drafting the appeal. The court ordered her to pay $1,000 toward Frontier’s legal costs and referred the decision to Maryland attorney disciplinary authorities.\nAnother case reached the court in June. Self-represented litigant Chapter Kris Jackson disclosed using AI-based tools to help prepare filings that judges found contained quotations and legal propositions missing from the cited cases. The panel warned that future use of hallucinated case law could result in sanctions.\nThe proposed rule focuses on the accuracy of what reaches the court. Lawyers already carry responsibility for the documents they sign and submit, including the factual and legal support behind their arguments. The new language would add an express certification that AI-assisted work received independent human review.\nGenerative AI can produce polished legal writing while inventing authorities, altering quotations or attaching the wrong legal proposition to a real case. A filing may appear complete until a judge, clerk or opposing lawyer checks the underlying source.\nThose errors can create consequences beyond an embarrassing correction. Courts can impose sanctions, strike filings, refer lawyers for professional discipline and require payment of costs caused by defective submissions.\nThe Tenth Circuit proposal would expressly allow judges to strike a filing, treat an affected issue as waived, impose monetary sanctions, order payment of expenses and attorney fees, begin disciplinary proceedings or, in some circumstances, dismiss or affirm an appeal.\nAI is also becoming increasingly embedded in legal research platforms, drafting software and document systems used by attorneys. The proposed rule would leave lawyers free to use those tools while making the person submitting the filing responsible for verifying the final product.\nOther federal appeals courts have considered similar restrictions. The Fifth Circuit proposed an AI certification requirement in 2023 that would have required lawyers to disclose whether generative AI was used and confirm that AI-generated material had been checked.\nAfter receiving comments arguing that existing professional and procedural rules already made lawyers responsible for the accuracy of their filings, the Fifth Circuit dropped the proposal in 2024.\nThe proposed Tenth Circuit rule centers instead on the finished filing. Lawyers would have to certify that a human verified the authorities, quotations, citations, and legal analysis submitted to the court, regardless of which AI tool helped prepare the document.\nPublic comments on the proposed rules are due October 18. The court plans to publish its final 2027 rules by November 30, with approved changes scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.\nRelated Articles\nOpenAI is calling for new U.S. and international AI safety standards after disclosing six incidents in which its artificial intelligence models concealed mistakes, used credentials without authorization, uploaded information to the public internet, and communicated outside approved channels.The ChatGPT maker released the cases September 16 under a new framework for... Read More »\nOpenAI, Anthropic, Google and SpaceXAI have been hit with a federal antitrust lawsuit accusing the rival artificial intelligence companies of illegally agreeing to slow development of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok in the name of AI safety.Four paying subscribers filed the proposed class action September 18 in the U.S. District... Read More »\nA federal judge’s AI-assisted order that named nonexistent people, cited material outside the court record, and misstated Mississippi law is now at the center of a Fifth Circuit fight over whether he should continue presiding over the case.Mississippi is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to... Read More »\nA New Mexico defense lawyer has been fined $5,000 after using ChatGPT to help draft a murder appeal, failing to check what it produced and filing a brief that included four witnesses who never existed, false testimony, and misrepresented legal authority.The New Mexico Supreme Court held Santa Fe attorney Stephen... Read More »","image_url":"https://lawcommentary.sfo3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/.cache/articles/01M35ZX46DSYWCYXDFSH5Q0N14.png/a47fe4a9db502842","lang":"en","published_at":"2026-09-23T14:04:33+00:00","fetched_at":"2026-09-23T15:15:06+00:00","status":"read","starred":0,"extract_state":"ok","summary_auto":"A California judge has ordered a lawyer for State Farm to pay $999.99 after finding seven nonexistent case citations in pretrial filings, errors the attorney said stemmed from her use of an artificial intelligence legal research tool.Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth L. Read More »\nFederal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases\nA federal appeals court is moving to tighten its rules on artificial intelligence after judges encountered court filings containing fabricated cases, false quotations and other AI-generated legal errors.","cluster_id":null,"extract_retries":0,"extract_error":null,"contract_version":"news_item.v1","format_contract_version":"news_item_formats.v1","dedup_url":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule","quality_profile":{"profile_version":"extraction_quality.v2","bucket":"high","confidence":0.9,"failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"retry_after_attempts":0,"reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 6036 characters.","operator_guidance":{"severity":"ok","recommended_action":"trust_full_text","next_step":"Use the extracted full text as the primary article source.","operator_label":"Ready","can_retry":false,"can_use_summary":false,"diagnostics_required":false},"content_depth":{"contract_version":"content_depth.v1","category":"full_text","label":"Full text","has_full_text":true,"has_summary":true,"content_length":6036,"summary_length":581,"usable_text_length":6036,"source_field":"content"},"legacy_collapsed":false,"signals":{"extract_state":"ok","extract_error":null,"extract_retries":0,"content_length":6036,"summary_length":581}},"news_item":{"id":88899,"canonical_url":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule","source_url":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule","title":"Federal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases - Law Commentary","source_name":"Law Commentary","author":null,"published_at":"2026-09-23T14:04:33+00:00","locale":"en","topic":"ai","tags":[],"rss_summary":"Federal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases Law Commentary","full_text":"A California judge has ordered a lawyer for State Farm to pay $999.99 after finding seven nonexistent case citations in pretrial filings, errors the attorney said stemmed from her use of an artificial intelligence legal research tool.Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth L. Bradley imposed the sanction on Jacquelene Robinson,... Read More »\nFederal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases\nA federal appeals court is moving to tighten its rules on artificial intelligence after judges encountered court filings containing fabricated cases, false quotations and other AI-generated legal errors.\nThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit proposed a new rule September 18 that would require lawyers and self-represented litigants to certify that a human reviewed filings prepared with generative AI before they are submitted to the court.\nUnder the proposal, anyone using generative AI to help prepare a brief, motion or other filing would have to independently verify the authorities cited, check quotations and citations, review the legal analysis and confirm compliance with court rules and professional obligations.\nThe Denver-based court hears federal appeals from Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. If adopted, the change would put a specific human-review requirement into the circuit’s rules as federal courts continue confronting AI-generated mistakes in legal filings.\nThe proposal follows two recent Tenth Circuit cases involving fabricated or inaccurate legal authorities.\nIn February, the court sanctioned Maryland attorney Kusmin L. Amarsingh after finding seven nonexistent cases in a brief filed in an appeal involving Frontier Airlines. Judges also found two real decisions that did not support the quotations or legal arguments attributed to them.\nAmarsingh acknowledged using ChatGPT while researching and drafting the appeal. The court ordered her to pay $1,000 toward Frontier’s legal costs and referred the decision to Maryland attorney disciplinary authorities.\nAnother case reached the court in June. Self-represented litigant Chapter Kris Jackson disclosed using AI-based tools to help prepare filings that judges found contained quotations and legal propositions missing from the cited cases. The panel warned that future use of hallucinated case law could result in sanctions.\nThe proposed rule focuses on the accuracy of what reaches the court. Lawyers already carry responsibility for the documents they sign and submit, including the factual and legal support behind their arguments. The new language would add an express certification that AI-assisted work received independent human review.\nGenerative AI can produce polished legal writing while inventing authorities, altering quotations or attaching the wrong legal proposition to a real case. A filing may appear complete until a judge, clerk or opposing lawyer checks the underlying source.\nThose errors can create consequences beyond an embarrassing correction. Courts can impose sanctions, strike filings, refer lawyers for professional discipline and require payment of costs caused by defective submissions.\nThe Tenth Circuit proposal would expressly allow judges to strike a filing, treat an affected issue as waived, impose monetary sanctions, order payment of expenses and attorney fees, begin disciplinary proceedings or, in some circumstances, dismiss or affirm an appeal.\nAI is also becoming increasingly embedded in legal research platforms, drafting software and document systems used by attorneys. The proposed rule would leave lawyers free to use those tools while making the person submitting the filing responsible for verifying the final product.\nOther federal appeals courts have considered similar restrictions. The Fifth Circuit proposed an AI certification requirement in 2023 that would have required lawyers to disclose whether generative AI was used and confirm that AI-generated material had been checked.\nAfter receiving comments arguing that existing professional and procedural rules already made lawyers responsible for the accuracy of their filings, the Fifth Circuit dropped the proposal in 2024.\nThe proposed Tenth Circuit rule centers instead on the finished filing. Lawyers would have to certify that a human verified the authorities, quotations, citations, and legal analysis submitted to the court, regardless of which AI tool helped prepare the document.\nPublic comments on the proposed rules are due October 18. The court plans to publish its final 2027 rules by November 30, with approved changes scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.\nRelated Articles\nOpenAI is calling for new U.S. and international AI safety standards after disclosing six incidents in which its artificial intelligence models concealed mistakes, used credentials without authorization, uploaded information to the public internet, and communicated outside approved channels.The ChatGPT maker released the cases September 16 under a new framework for... Read More »\nOpenAI, Anthropic, Google and SpaceXAI have been hit with a federal antitrust lawsuit accusing the rival artificial intelligence companies of illegally agreeing to slow development of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok in the name of AI safety.Four paying subscribers filed the proposed class action September 18 in the U.S. District... Read More »\nA federal judge’s AI-assisted order that named nonexistent people, cited material outside the court record, and misstated Mississippi law is now at the center of a Fifth Circuit fight over whether he should continue presiding over the case.Mississippi is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to... Read More »\nA New Mexico defense lawyer has been fined $5,000 after using ChatGPT to help draft a murder appeal, failing to check what it produced and filing a brief that included four witnesses who never existed, false testimony, and misrepresented legal authority.The New Mexico Supreme Court held Santa Fe attorney Stephen... Read More »","excerpt":"A California judge has ordered a lawyer for State Farm to pay $999.99 after finding seven nonexistent case citations in pretrial filings, errors the attorney said stemmed from her use of an artificial intelligence legal research tool.Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth L. Read More »\nFederal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases\nA federal appeals court is moving to tighten its rules on artificial intelligence after judges encountered court filings containing fabricated cases, false quotations and other AI-generated legal errors.","extraction":{"state":"ok","confidence":0.9,"error":null,"explanation":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 6036 characters.","diagnostics_url":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule","quality_profile":{"profile_version":"extraction_quality.v2","bucket":"high","confidence":0.9,"failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"retry_after_attempts":0,"reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 6036 characters.","operator_guidance":{"severity":"ok","recommended_action":"trust_full_text","next_step":"Use the extracted full text as the primary article source.","operator_label":"Ready","can_retry":false,"can_use_summary":false,"diagnostics_required":false},"content_depth":{"contract_version":"content_depth.v1","category":"full_text","label":"Full text","has_full_text":true,"has_summary":true,"content_length":6036,"summary_length":581,"usable_text_length":6036,"source_field":"content"},"legacy_collapsed":false,"signals":{"extract_state":"ok","extract_error":null,"extract_retries":0,"content_length":6036,"summary_length":581}}},"display_formats":["compact","card","full","digest_section","json"]},"daily_stack_record":{"title":"Federal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases - Law Commentary","url":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule","summary":"A California judge has ordered a lawyer for State Farm to pay $999.99 after finding seven nonexistent case citations in pretrial filings, errors the attorney said stemmed from her use of an artificial intelligence legal research tool.Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth L. Read More »\nFederal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases\nA federal appeals court is moving to tighten its rules on artificial intelligence after judges encountered court filings containing fabricated cases, false quotations and other AI-generated legal errors.","source":"Law Commentary","date":"2026-09-23T14:04:33+00:00","content":"A California judge has ordered a lawyer for State Farm to pay $999.99 after finding seven nonexistent case citations in pretrial filings, errors the attorney said stemmed from her use of an artificial intelligence legal research tool.Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth L. Bradley imposed the sanction on Jacquelene Robinson,... Read More »\nFederal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases\nA federal appeals court is moving to tighten its rules on artificial intelligence after judges encountered court filings containing fabricated cases, false quotations and other AI-generated legal errors.\nThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit proposed a new rule September 18 that would require lawyers and self-represented litigants to certify that a human reviewed filings prepared with generative AI before they are submitted to the court.\nUnder the proposal, anyone using generative AI to help prepare a brief, motion or other filing would have to independently verify the authorities cited, check quotations and citations, review the legal analysis and confirm compliance with court rules and professional obligations.\nThe Denver-based court hears federal appeals from Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. If adopted, the change would put a specific human-review requirement into the circuit’s rules as federal courts continue confronting AI-generated mistakes in legal filings.\nThe proposal follows two recent Tenth Circuit cases involving fabricated or inaccurate legal authorities.\nIn February, the court sanctioned Maryland attorney Kusmin L. Amarsingh after finding seven nonexistent cases in a brief filed in an appeal involving Frontier Airlines. Judges also found two real decisions that did not support the quotations or legal arguments attributed to them.\nAmarsingh acknowledged using ChatGPT while researching and drafting the appeal. The court ordered her to pay $1,000 toward Frontier’s legal costs and referred the decision to Maryland attorney disciplinary authorities.\nAnother case reached the court in June. Self-represented litigant Chapter Kris Jackson disclosed using AI-based tools to help prepare filings that judges found contained quotations and legal propositions missing from the cited cases. The panel warned that future use of hallucinated case law could result in sanctions.\nThe proposed rule focuses on the accuracy of what reaches the court. Lawyers already carry responsibility for the documents they sign and submit, including the factual and legal support behind their arguments. The new language would add an express certification that AI-assisted work received independent human review.\nGenerative AI can produce polished legal writing while inventing authorities, altering quotations or attaching the wrong legal proposition to a real case. A filing may appear complete until a judge, clerk or opposing lawyer checks the underlying source.\nThose errors can create consequences beyond an embarrassing correction. Courts can impose sanctions, strike filings, refer lawyers for professional discipline and require payment of costs caused by defective submissions.\nThe Tenth Circuit proposal would expressly allow judges to strike a filing, treat an affected issue as waived, impose monetary sanctions, order payment of expenses and attorney fees, begin disciplinary proceedings or, in some circumstances, dismiss or affirm an appeal.\nAI is also becoming increasingly embedded in legal research platforms, drafting software and document systems used by attorneys. The proposed rule would leave lawyers free to use those tools while making the person submitting the filing responsible for verifying the final product.\nOther federal appeals courts have considered similar restrictions. The Fifth Circuit proposed an AI certification requirement in 2023 that would have required lawyers to disclose whether generative AI was used and confirm that AI-generated material had been checked.\nAfter receiving comments arguing that existing professional and procedural rules already made lawyers responsible for the accuracy of their filings, the Fifth Circuit dropped the proposal in 2024.\nThe proposed Tenth Circuit rule centers instead on the finished filing. Lawyers would have to certify that a human verified the authorities, quotations, citations, and legal analysis submitted to the court, regardless of which AI tool helped prepare the document.\nPublic comments on the proposed rules are due October 18. The court plans to publish its final 2027 rules by November 30, with approved changes scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.\nRelated Articles\nOpenAI is calling for new U.S. and international AI safety standards after disclosing six incidents in which its artificial intelligence models concealed mistakes, used credentials without authorization, uploaded information to the public internet, and communicated outside approved channels.The ChatGPT maker released the cases September 16 under a new framework for... Read More »\nOpenAI, Anthropic, Google and SpaceXAI have been hit with a federal antitrust lawsuit accusing the rival artificial intelligence companies of illegally agreeing to slow development of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok in the name of AI safety.Four paying subscribers filed the proposed class action September 18 in the U.S. District... Read More »\nA federal judge’s AI-assisted order that named nonexistent people, cited material outside the court record, and misstated Mississippi law is now at the center of a Fifth Circuit fight over whether he should continue presiding over the case.Mississippi is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to... Read More »\nA New Mexico defense lawyer has been fined $5,000 after using ChatGPT to help draft a murder appeal, failing to check what it produced and filing a brief that included four witnesses who never existed, false testimony, and misrepresented legal authority.The New Mexico Supreme Court held Santa Fe attorney Stephen... Read More »","confidence":0.9,"diagnostics_url":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule","quality_bucket":"high","failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"quality_reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 6036 characters.","quality_profile":{"profile_version":"extraction_quality.v2","bucket":"high","confidence":0.9,"failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"retry_after_attempts":0,"reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 6036 characters.","operator_guidance":{"severity":"ok","recommended_action":"trust_full_text","next_step":"Use the extracted full text as the primary article source.","operator_label":"Ready","can_retry":false,"can_use_summary":false,"diagnostics_required":false},"content_depth":{"contract_version":"content_depth.v1","category":"full_text","label":"Full text","has_full_text":true,"has_summary":true,"content_length":6036,"summary_length":581,"usable_text_length":6036,"source_field":"content"},"legacy_collapsed":false,"signals":{"extract_state":"ok","extract_error":null,"extract_retries":0,"content_length":6036,"summary_length":581}},"tags":[]},"fallback_formats":["markdown","json","html"],"actions":{"read":"/item/88899","export_markdown":"/api/items/88899/export?format=markdown","export_json":"/api/items/88899/export?format=json","diagnose":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule"},"formats":{"full":{"id":88899,"title":"Federal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases - Law Commentary","url":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule","source":"Law Commentary","author":null,"published_at":"2026-09-23T14:04:33+00:00","locale":"en","topic":"ai","tags":[],"excerpt":"A California judge has ordered a lawyer for State Farm to pay $999.99 after finding seven nonexistent case citations in pretrial filings, errors the attorney said stemmed from her use of an artificial intelligence legal research tool.Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth L. Read More »\nFederal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases\nA federal appeals court is moving to tighten its rules on artificial intelligence after judges encountered court filings containing fabricated cases, false quotations and other AI-generated legal errors.","full_text":"A California judge has ordered a lawyer for State Farm to pay $999.99 after finding seven nonexistent case citations in pretrial filings, errors the attorney said stemmed from her use of an artificial intelligence legal research tool.Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth L. Bradley imposed the sanction on Jacquelene Robinson,... Read More »\nFederal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases\nA federal appeals court is moving to tighten its rules on artificial intelligence after judges encountered court filings containing fabricated cases, false quotations and other AI-generated legal errors.\nThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit proposed a new rule September 18 that would require lawyers and self-represented litigants to certify that a human reviewed filings prepared with generative AI before they are submitted to the court.\nUnder the proposal, anyone using generative AI to help prepare a brief, motion or other filing would have to independently verify the authorities cited, check quotations and citations, review the legal analysis and confirm compliance with court rules and professional obligations.\nThe Denver-based court hears federal appeals from Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. If adopted, the change would put a specific human-review requirement into the circuit’s rules as federal courts continue confronting AI-generated mistakes in legal filings.\nThe proposal follows two recent Tenth Circuit cases involving fabricated or inaccurate legal authorities.\nIn February, the court sanctioned Maryland attorney Kusmin L. Amarsingh after finding seven nonexistent cases in a brief filed in an appeal involving Frontier Airlines. Judges also found two real decisions that did not support the quotations or legal arguments attributed to them.\nAmarsingh acknowledged using ChatGPT while researching and drafting the appeal. The court ordered her to pay $1,000 toward Frontier’s legal costs and referred the decision to Maryland attorney disciplinary authorities.\nAnother case reached the court in June. Self-represented litigant Chapter Kris Jackson disclosed using AI-based tools to help prepare filings that judges found contained quotations and legal propositions missing from the cited cases. The panel warned that future use of hallucinated case law could result in sanctions.\nThe proposed rule focuses on the accuracy of what reaches the court. Lawyers already carry responsibility for the documents they sign and submit, including the factual and legal support behind their arguments. The new language would add an express certification that AI-assisted work received independent human review.\nGenerative AI can produce polished legal writing while inventing authorities, altering quotations or attaching the wrong legal proposition to a real case. A filing may appear complete until a judge, clerk or opposing lawyer checks the underlying source.\nThose errors can create consequences beyond an embarrassing correction. Courts can impose sanctions, strike filings, refer lawyers for professional discipline and require payment of costs caused by defective submissions.\nThe Tenth Circuit proposal would expressly allow judges to strike a filing, treat an affected issue as waived, impose monetary sanctions, order payment of expenses and attorney fees, begin disciplinary proceedings or, in some circumstances, dismiss or affirm an appeal.\nAI is also becoming increasingly embedded in legal research platforms, drafting software and document systems used by attorneys. The proposed rule would leave lawyers free to use those tools while making the person submitting the filing responsible for verifying the final product.\nOther federal appeals courts have considered similar restrictions. The Fifth Circuit proposed an AI certification requirement in 2023 that would have required lawyers to disclose whether generative AI was used and confirm that AI-generated material had been checked.\nAfter receiving comments arguing that existing professional and procedural rules already made lawyers responsible for the accuracy of their filings, the Fifth Circuit dropped the proposal in 2024.\nThe proposed Tenth Circuit rule centers instead on the finished filing. Lawyers would have to certify that a human verified the authorities, quotations, citations, and legal analysis submitted to the court, regardless of which AI tool helped prepare the document.\nPublic comments on the proposed rules are due October 18. The court plans to publish its final 2027 rules by November 30, with approved changes scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.\nRelated Articles\nOpenAI is calling for new U.S. and international AI safety standards after disclosing six incidents in which its artificial intelligence models concealed mistakes, used credentials without authorization, uploaded information to the public internet, and communicated outside approved channels.The ChatGPT maker released the cases September 16 under a new framework for... Read More »\nOpenAI, Anthropic, Google and SpaceXAI have been hit with a federal antitrust lawsuit accusing the rival artificial intelligence companies of illegally agreeing to slow development of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok in the name of AI safety.Four paying subscribers filed the proposed class action September 18 in the U.S. District... Read More »\nA federal judge’s AI-assisted order that named nonexistent people, cited material outside the court record, and misstated Mississippi law is now at the center of a Fifth Circuit fight over whether he should continue presiding over the case.Mississippi is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to... Read More »\nA New Mexico defense lawyer has been fined $5,000 after using ChatGPT to help draft a murder appeal, failing to check what it produced and filing a brief that included four witnesses who never existed, false testimony, and misrepresented legal authority.The New Mexico Supreme Court held Santa Fe attorney Stephen... Read More »","reading_time_min":4,"extraction":{"state":"ok","confidence":0.9,"error":null,"explanation":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 6036 characters.","diagnostics_url":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule","quality_profile":{"profile_version":"extraction_quality.v2","bucket":"high","confidence":0.9,"failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"retry_after_attempts":0,"reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 6036 characters.","operator_guidance":{"severity":"ok","recommended_action":"trust_full_text","next_step":"Use the extracted full text as the primary article source.","operator_label":"Ready","can_retry":false,"can_use_summary":false,"diagnostics_required":false},"content_depth":{"contract_version":"content_depth.v1","category":"full_text","label":"Full text","has_full_text":true,"has_summary":true,"content_length":6036,"summary_length":581,"usable_text_length":6036,"source_field":"content"},"legacy_collapsed":false,"signals":{"extract_state":"ok","extract_error":null,"extract_retries":0,"content_length":6036,"summary_length":581}}},"quality_profile":{"profile_version":"extraction_quality.v2","bucket":"high","confidence":0.9,"failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"retry_after_attempts":0,"reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 6036 characters.","operator_guidance":{"severity":"ok","recommended_action":"trust_full_text","next_step":"Use the extracted full text as the primary article source.","operator_label":"Ready","can_retry":false,"can_use_summary":false,"diagnostics_required":false},"content_depth":{"contract_version":"content_depth.v1","category":"full_text","label":"Full text","has_full_text":true,"has_summary":true,"content_length":6036,"summary_length":581,"usable_text_length":6036,"source_field":"content"},"legacy_collapsed":false,"signals":{"extract_state":"ok","extract_error":null,"extract_retries":0,"content_length":6036,"summary_length":581}},"actions":{"read":"/item/88899","export_markdown":"/api/items/88899/export?format=markdown","export_json":"/api/items/88899/export?format=json","diagnose":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule"}},"digest":{"id":88899,"title":"Federal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases - Law Commentary","url":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule","source":"Law Commentary","topic":"ai","published_at":"2026-09-23T14:04:33+00:00","excerpt":"A California judge has ordered a lawyer for State Farm to pay $999.99 after finding seven nonexistent case citations in pretrial filings, errors the attorney said stemmed from her use of an artificial intelligence legal research tool.Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth L.…","quality_bucket":"high","quality_reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 6036 characters.","reading_time_min":4,"cluster_id":null},"card":{"display_title":"Federal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases - Law Commentary","subtitle":"Law Commentary · 2026-09-23","summary":"A California judge has ordered a lawyer for State Farm to pay $999.99 after finding seven nonexistent case citations in pretrial filings, errors the attorney said stemmed from her use of an artificial intelligence legal…","badges":["quality:high"],"links":{"read":"/item/88899","original":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule","diagnose":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule"},"quality_warning":null},"export":{"title":"Federal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases - Law Commentary","url":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule","summary":"A California judge has ordered a lawyer for State Farm to pay $999.99 after finding seven nonexistent case citations in pretrial filings, errors the attorney said stemmed from her use of an artificial intelligence legal research tool.Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth L. Read More »\nFederal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases\nA federal appeals court is moving to tighten its rules on artificial intelligence after judges encountered court filings containing fabricated cases, false quotations and other AI-generated legal errors.","source":"Law Commentary","date":"2026-09-23T14:04:33+00:00","content":"A California judge has ordered a lawyer for State Farm to pay $999.99 after finding seven nonexistent case citations in pretrial filings, errors the attorney said stemmed from her use of an artificial intelligence legal research tool.Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth L. Bradley imposed the sanction on Jacquelene Robinson,... Read More »\nFederal Appeals Court Moves to Crack Down on AI Filings After Lawyers Cite Fake Cases\nA federal appeals court is moving to tighten its rules on artificial intelligence after judges encountered court filings containing fabricated cases, false quotations and other AI-generated legal errors.\nThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit proposed a new rule September 18 that would require lawyers and self-represented litigants to certify that a human reviewed filings prepared with generative AI before they are submitted to the court.\nUnder the proposal, anyone using generative AI to help prepare a brief, motion or other filing would have to independently verify the authorities cited, check quotations and citations, review the legal analysis and confirm compliance with court rules and professional obligations.\nThe Denver-based court hears federal appeals from Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. If adopted, the change would put a specific human-review requirement into the circuit’s rules as federal courts continue confronting AI-generated mistakes in legal filings.\nThe proposal follows two recent Tenth Circuit cases involving fabricated or inaccurate legal authorities.\nIn February, the court sanctioned Maryland attorney Kusmin L. Amarsingh after finding seven nonexistent cases in a brief filed in an appeal involving Frontier Airlines. Judges also found two real decisions that did not support the quotations or legal arguments attributed to them.\nAmarsingh acknowledged using ChatGPT while researching and drafting the appeal. The court ordered her to pay $1,000 toward Frontier’s legal costs and referred the decision to Maryland attorney disciplinary authorities.\nAnother case reached the court in June. Self-represented litigant Chapter Kris Jackson disclosed using AI-based tools to help prepare filings that judges found contained quotations and legal propositions missing from the cited cases. The panel warned that future use of hallucinated case law could result in sanctions.\nThe proposed rule focuses on the accuracy of what reaches the court. Lawyers already carry responsibility for the documents they sign and submit, including the factual and legal support behind their arguments. The new language would add an express certification that AI-assisted work received independent human review.\nGenerative AI can produce polished legal writing while inventing authorities, altering quotations or attaching the wrong legal proposition to a real case. A filing may appear complete until a judge, clerk or opposing lawyer checks the underlying source.\nThose errors can create consequences beyond an embarrassing correction. Courts can impose sanctions, strike filings, refer lawyers for professional discipline and require payment of costs caused by defective submissions.\nThe Tenth Circuit proposal would expressly allow judges to strike a filing, treat an affected issue as waived, impose monetary sanctions, order payment of expenses and attorney fees, begin disciplinary proceedings or, in some circumstances, dismiss or affirm an appeal.\nAI is also becoming increasingly embedded in legal research platforms, drafting software and document systems used by attorneys. The proposed rule would leave lawyers free to use those tools while making the person submitting the filing responsible for verifying the final product.\nOther federal appeals courts have considered similar restrictions. The Fifth Circuit proposed an AI certification requirement in 2023 that would have required lawyers to disclose whether generative AI was used and confirm that AI-generated material had been checked.\nAfter receiving comments arguing that existing professional and procedural rules already made lawyers responsible for the accuracy of their filings, the Fifth Circuit dropped the proposal in 2024.\nThe proposed Tenth Circuit rule centers instead on the finished filing. Lawyers would have to certify that a human verified the authorities, quotations, citations, and legal analysis submitted to the court, regardless of which AI tool helped prepare the document.\nPublic comments on the proposed rules are due October 18. The court plans to publish its final 2027 rules by November 30, with approved changes scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.\nRelated Articles\nOpenAI is calling for new U.S. and international AI safety standards after disclosing six incidents in which its artificial intelligence models concealed mistakes, used credentials without authorization, uploaded information to the public internet, and communicated outside approved channels.The ChatGPT maker released the cases September 16 under a new framework for... Read More »\nOpenAI, Anthropic, Google and SpaceXAI have been hit with a federal antitrust lawsuit accusing the rival artificial intelligence companies of illegally agreeing to slow development of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok in the name of AI safety.Four paying subscribers filed the proposed class action September 18 in the U.S. District... Read More »\nA federal judge’s AI-assisted order that named nonexistent people, cited material outside the court record, and misstated Mississippi law is now at the center of a Fifth Circuit fight over whether he should continue presiding over the case.Mississippi is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to... Read More »\nA New Mexico defense lawyer has been fined $5,000 after using ChatGPT to help draft a murder appeal, failing to check what it produced and filing a brief that included four witnesses who never existed, false testimony, and misrepresented legal authority.The New Mexico Supreme Court held Santa Fe attorney Stephen... Read More »","confidence":0.9,"diagnostics_url":"/api/diagnose?url=https%3A//www.lawcommentary.com/articles/tenth-circuit-ai-court-filings-human-review-rule","quality_bucket":"high","failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"quality_reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 6036 characters.","quality_profile":{"profile_version":"extraction_quality.v2","bucket":"high","confidence":0.9,"failure_kind":"none","retryable":false,"retry_after_attempts":0,"reason":"High confidence: full text extraction produced 6036 characters.","operator_guidance":{"severity":"ok","recommended_action":"trust_full_text","next_step":"Use the extracted full text as the primary article source.","operator_label":"Ready","can_retry":false,"can_use_summary":false,"diagnostics_required":false},"content_depth":{"contract_version":"content_depth.v1","category":"full_text","label":"Full text","has_full_text":true,"has_summary":true,"content_length":6036,"summary_length":581,"usable_text_length":6036,"source_field":"content"},"legacy_collapsed":false,"signals":{"extract_state":"ok","extract_error":null,"extract_retries":0,"content_length":6036,"summary_length":581}},"tags":[],"format_contract_version":"news_item_formats.v1"}}}