A fine may follow if a court finds factitious citations in an AI-assisted brief

On September 24, 2026, in Clark v. Social Security, Commissioner of, the court ordered Rich to show cause why she should not be sanctioned, including with the imposition of a fine, after a brief prepared with generative artificial intelligence included factitious citations. CourtListener RECAP dockets: generative AI and sanctions or hallucinations reports that Rich responded to the show-cause order and that the filing identified the use of AI in preparing the brief.

AI does not eliminate the consequences of bad legal work. The Clark order applies that principle to the finished filing rather than to the novelty of the tool: an AI-assisted brief still faces scrutiny for the citations it puts before a court. The point matters for AI-native legal work because a workflow that produces a completed document is viable only if the document can withstand review. CourtListener: AI and privilege (opinions) describes Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Published Order as a cautionary tale about the misuse of artificial intelligence and its consequences for attorneys. That description supports the narrower proposition that courts continue to treat misuse as a professional consequence, not as an exemption created by automation.

The Clark order proves that a court connected an AI-assisted brief containing factitious citations to a show-cause process that could include a fine. It does not prove that a sanction was ultimately imposed, that AI generated every defective citation, or that every AI-assisted filing creates the same problem. It also does not establish that the brief was produced by an AI-native firm; the filing identifies AI use, but the item does not identify the provider, the workflow, or the organization behind the submission. The stronger reading would require a final order resolving the show-cause proceeding, stating whether sanctions were imposed and explaining the role of the AI-assisted process in the defective citations. Until then, the event is a case in which AI use accompanied judicial scrutiny, not a finding that AI itself determines the outcome.

The next observable fact is the court’s order resolving the show-cause proceeding in Clark v. Social Security, Commissioner of. A final sanction, a fine, or a finding that no sanction was warranted would materially change the reading of the event. The most important language will be whether the court identifies the factitious citations as the basis for the sanction and whether it assigns responsibility to the filing process or to the use of AI. We will count the position as strengthened by a final order imposing consequences for the defective filing, and weakened only if the court resolves the matter without a sanction or without linking the citations to the AI-assisted preparation.