Johnson v. Dunn

Docket entry 204, 23 July 2025 · source · PDF · 51 pages

Docket text. SANCTIONS ORDER. Signed by Judge Anna M Manasco on 07/23/2025. (AKD) Modified on 7/24/2025 (KAM). (Entered: 07/23/2025)

JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:21-cv-1701-AMM SANCTIONS ORDER This case is before the court because incarcerated Plaintiff Frankie Johnson accused Defendant Jefferson Dunn, the former Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, of fabricating citations to legal authorities in two motions. Docs.

Cranford, and William R. Lunsford) confirmed in writing and at a hearing that the citations were hallucinations of a popular generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) application, ChatGPT. See Docs.

194, 200. In simpler terms, the citations were completely made up. The court must determine an appropriate sanction.

The court must determine an appropriate sanction. Fabricating legal authority is serious misconduct that demands a serious sanction. In the court’s view, it demands substantially greater accountability than the reprimands and modest fines that have become common as courts confront this form of AI misuse.

And in any event, they have little effect when the lawyer’s client ( here, an Alabama government agency) learns of the attorney’s misconduct and continues to retain him. An appropriate and reasonable sanction must (1) have sufficient deterrent force to make this misuse of AI unprofitable for lawyers and litigants, (2) correspond to the extrem e dereliction of professional responsibility that sham citations reflect (whether generated by artificial or human intelligence), and (3) effectively communicate that made-up authorities have no place in a court of law. For the reasons explained below, the court PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS Mr.

186. Plaintiff Johnson objected to a deposition the week of June 3rd on several grounds, including that counsel for Defendant Dunn appeared to have fabricated citations to legal authority in his motion for leave and motion to compel, “possibly through the use of generative artificial intelligence.” Id. at 1. In total, there were five problematic citations across two motions: • Defendant Dunn cited “United States v.

174 at 2. This case does not exist, nor does a case exist with a similar citation for that proposition of law. See Doc.

At 12: 14 p.m. on Friday, May 16, 2025, the court issued a show cause order noting that “[i]n the light of the seriousness of the accusation, the court ha[d] conducted independent searches for each allegedly fabricated citation, to no avail,” and ordering the signatories of Defendant Dunn’s motion for leave, and the Butler Snow law firm, “to show good cause, if there be any, why they should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the court’s inherent authority, 6 Local Rule 83.1(f), and/or Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 for making false statements of fact or law to the court, not later than 3:00 PM Central Daylight Time on Monday, M ay 19, 2025.” Doc.

Docket entry 193, 19 May 2025 · source · PDF · 4 pages

Docket text. SUPPLEMENTAL SHOW CAUSE ORDER. Signed by Judge Anna M Manasco on 05/19/2025. (AKD) (Entered: 05/19/2025)

In his response, Mr. Johnson opposes the request to depose him the week of June 3rd for several reasons, including that counsel for Defendant Dunn appears to have fabricated citations to legal authority in his motion for leave, “possibly through FILED 2025 May-19 PM 12:07 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D.

Mr. Johnson also discusses an allegedly fabricated citation in Defendant Dunn’s motion to compel. Id. at 4–5; see also Doc.

Ms. Potter is ORDERED to append to her filing a copy of the allegedly fabricated legal authority in the motion to compel; if she cannot provide that copy, she is further ORDERED to submit a sworn declaration that provides a thorough explanation for how the motion to compel and allegedly fabricated case were generated, and her role in drafting or supervising the motion to compel. Ms.

Docket entry 187, 16 May 2025 · source · PDF · 3 pages

Docket text. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Anna M Manasco on 5/16/2025. (FNC) (Entered: 05/16/2025)

Mr. Johnson opposes the request to depose him the week of June 3rd for several reasons, including that counsel for Defendant Dunn appears to have fabricated citations to legal authority in his motion for leave, “possibly through the use of generative artificial intelligence.” Id. at 1. In his opposition, Mr.

In his opposition, Mr. Johnson describes at length the bases for his belief that counsel for Defendant Dunn fabricated citations. In the light of the seriousness of the accu sation, the court has conducted independent searches for each allegedly fabricated citation, to no avail.

Said counsel are ORDERED to append to their filing s copies of each allegedly fabricated legal authority; if they cannot provide such copies, counsel are further ORDERED to submit sworn declarations that provide a th orough explanation for how the motion and allegedly fabricated cases were generated, and their role in drafting or supervising the motion.