Factitious citations may turn an AI-assisted brief into a sanctions question

On September 24, the court in Clark v. Social Security, Commissioner of ordered Rich to show cause why she should not be sanctioned, including through a fine, for including factitious citations in a plaintiff’s brief. CourtListener RECAP dockets says the order followed the use of generative artificial intelligence in preparing the brief. The docket identifies the matter as Clark v. Social Security, Commissioner of and records the court’s order to show cause.

That is the practical consequence that matters for AI-native legal work: automation does not remove the obligation to deliver a reliable filing. The Clark order places the question in procedural terms. A brief produced with AI assistance can still lead to a court demanding an explanation and considering a fine when its citations are factitious. CourtListener: AI and privilege (opinions) describes Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Published Order as a cautionary tale about the misuse of AI and its consequences for attorneys. Together, the orders show why verification and accountability remain part of legal delivery rather than optional additions to it.

The Clark order establishes one court’s response to one brief. It does not establish that AI caused the factitious citations, that every AI-assisted filing is defective, or that a law firm is liable for the work. It also does not establish that Rich has been sanctioned: the court ordered a response to a show-cause proceeding. A stronger reading would require a later order imposing or declining sanctions, together with findings about the citations, the role of AI in producing them, and the responsibility of the lawyer who filed the brief. The order sanctions no lawyer yet; it says nothing about an AI-native firm’s broader delivery model.

The next observable fact is the court’s disposition of the Clark show-cause proceeding. A final order imposing a fine or another sanction would confirm that factitious citations in an AI-assisted brief produced a concrete legal consequence. An order declining sanctions, or finding that the citations were not attributable to the AI-assisted preparation, would narrow the reading. The same question applies to any later order in Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Published Order: whether the court identifies specific bad work and assigns responsibility for it. We will count consequences only when a court moves beyond warning and makes that responsibility operative.