Judges are losing patience with lawyers' AI mistakes

• AI hallucinations in court filings got lawyers on both sides kicked off a case.
• The federal Mississippi judge also imposed a combined $8,000 in fines on the four attorneys.
• It shows how judges are taking a tougher stance on AI errors in filings, a legal expert said.

Judges are getting tired of cleaning up the AI slop oozing into their courtrooms.

The latest example of their patience wearing thin can be found in Mississippi, where a federal judge brought the hammer down earlier this week on attorneys on both sides of a lawsuit after they admitted to submitting court filings containing bogus citations generated by AI.

In a sharply worded sanctions order issued Monday, US District Judge Sharion Aycock removed all four lawyers from the case, barred two from practicing before the court for two years, and imposed a combined $8,000 in fines.

The US District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi "is yet again 'burdened with addressing AI hallucinations in court filings,'" Aycock wrote in the 23-page order, adding, "This case presents the Court with an unusual scenario—attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct."

The order reflects a growing frustration among US judges with lawyers who file court briefs with AI-generated errors, a legal expert told Business Insider.

"In some earlier examples of the same behavior, offending attorneys were let off with a slap on the wrist," said Mark Bartholomew, a University at Buffalo School of Law professor. "Now judges just don't buy it when a lawyer protests they had no idea that AI models can hallucinate, and they are willing to call such behavior out as bad faith."

Aycock's sanctions stem from legal briefs filed by lawyers in the case involving a contractual dispute over legal fees between the plaintiff, Louisiana attorney Tom Withers, and the defendant, the Mississippi city of Aberdeen.

According to the judge's order, Kathleen Wilson, an out-of-state attorney for Withers, admitted to using an AI tool to conduct legal research, while Kathryn Williams, an out-of-state lawyer for Aberdeen, owned up to using generative AI to draft a filing.

"Neither of them verified the legal authority output by AI before filing their briefs," Aycock wrote. The judge continued, "Their acts of relying on AI output without verification alone supports a finding that they acted in bad faith."

Shauncey Ridgeway and Mark McClinton, the local counsel for the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, acknowledged they had not reviewed the filings before they were submitted, the order said.

All four lawyers said they only learned that AI-hallucinated court cases were cited in their filings after the judge brought the issue to their attention late last year, according to Aycock's order, which said the lawyers apologized and "expressed embarrassment."

The discovery had prompted the court to stay the case and cancel the scheduled trial. And the attorneys' apologies did little to satisfy the judge.

"In an era of rampant unverified AI usage within the legal field, this case presents a prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubberstamp when acting as local counsel," the judge wrote in her Monday order.

Wilson and Williams were hit with the stiffest penalties — two-year suspensions from appearing before the court and fines of $2,500 and $3,500, respectively. Ridgeway and McClinton were disqualified from the case and each fined $1,000.

The judge has given Withers and the city of Aberdeen 60 days to find new counsel.

Williams declined to comment, while the other attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment by Business Insider.

A managing partner at Ridgeway's law firm, Christian & Small LLP, said the firm would "continue to educate our team about the appropriate use of artificial intelligence tools when they can benefit our clients, and the absolute requirement that our lawyers verify all information in our filings is accurate and correct."

Like many professions, the legal industry has rapidly embraced AI tools. According to the 2026 Legal Industry Report by the business platform 8am, 69% of surveyed legal professionals reported using generative AI tools for work.

In recent months, attorneys in several cases handled by top firms have come under scrutiny for their use of AI in the courtroom.

Last year, law firms Ellis George and K&L Gates were ordered by a judge to pay about $31,000 in sanctions after attorneys filed a brief containing made-up cases generated by AI.

Earlier this year, a partner at Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell apologized to a federal bankruptcy judge after submitting a court filing with AI hallucinations.

Bartholomew, the law professor, said he expects more lawyers to face sanctions from judges over AI-generated mistakes.

"The temptation is just too great for overworked lawyers looking for ways to cut corners," Bartholomew said, explaining that until AI firms "solve the hallucination problem, there will be more of these cases and more sanctions."

The post Judges are losing patience with lawyers' AI mistakes appeared first on Business Insider