Artificial intelligence must always be paired with actual intelligence.
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently had an opportunity to address the use of AI when preparing legal pleadings, and whether sanctions were appropriate for improper inclusion of AI-hallucinated cases in an appellate brief.
Holstein v. Holstein, 25A-DC-2767 (Ind. Ct. App. June 16, 2026).
What Happened:
During an appeal, an attorney discovered that they had filed a brief containing two non-existent cases, and a fictious quote to an existing case. These cases had been provided by the attorney’s client, and the attorney failed to verify their accuracy before including them in the brief. The attorney promptly filed a notice to the court explaining the situation and sought leave to file an amended brief. This request was granted, and the attorney filed an amended brief. The other party filed their amended response, and asked the court for sanctions.
In its opinion, the court took the opportunity “to reemphasize the importance of verifying every citation, holding, and quote a litigant selects for inclusion in his or her filings to a court,” but did not impose sanctions because the attorney’s prompt correction did not hinder the court’s ability to consider the case. The court also discussed the risks posed by the use of artificial intelligence in litigation.
Key takeaways:
- AI is a tool, not a decision-maker. The court did not ban or discourage the use of AI. In fact, it acknowledged that AI can be a useful tool for legal drafting and research. However, attorneys who use AI remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and completeness of everything they file. Using AI does not shift or dilute that responsibility in any way.
- Never assume accuracy. Treat AI output as a draft prepared by a non-attorney still learning how to research, not as a final product. AI-generated documents may look polished, but attorneys must still ensure that every citation is real, every quote is accurate, and every argument is grounded in verified law. This includes pleadings filed by another party; attorneys have an obligation to verify the other side’s citations and arguments as well.
- These duties are non-delegable. Courts treat failure to verify AI-generated citations as no different than citing cases the attorney has not actually read. In other words, relying blindly on AI is not just careless; it is a breach of basic professional competence.
- If you miss something, fix it immediately. Notify the court and all affected parties, and seek leave to file an amended pleading. It may not prevent all consequences, but it will help mitigate the damages.
- Misuse of AI can be costly. Depending on the nature, extent, and timing of the misuse, attorneys and parties may face significant consequences, including monetary sanctions, orders striking filings, limitations on future submissions, and, in some cases, dismissal of the underlying case or appeal.
Holstein v. Holstein, 25A-DC-2767 (Ind. Ct. App. June 16, 2026).
This post was created with assistance from Co-Pilot, an AI-powered digital assistant developed by Microsoft.