Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity Regulatory Action

Sixth Circuit removes court-appointed defence lawyer over CoCounsel-drafted briefs with false quotations, delaying an indigent defendant's appeal

In a published opinion of 3 April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed the briefs a lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act had filed for an indigent defendant appealing a sentencing enhancement in a drug-trafficking case. The court noticed that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and found three quotations that appear in no legal authority and misstatements of two precedents. The lawyer admitted that a staff member had used Westlaw's CoCounsel to create the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations came from artificial intelligence he did not verify. The court denied him compensation for the appeal, referred the opinion for possible disciplinary proceedings and to the Kentucky Bar Association, and by separate order removed him, locked his briefs and ordered replacement counsel to file new ones, which it said further delayed resolution of the defendant's appeal. The court acknowledged his candour and his 40 years without discipline.

AI system
CoCounsel
Thomson Reuters
Occurred
21 Oct 2025 to 3 Apr 2026
Reported
3 April 2026
Event location
United States
What the AI did
Communicated with the person · Informed a human decision about the person
Reported harm
Legal HarmProfessional HarmFinancial Loss
Whose AI use
Their own AI use · Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Justice · Work
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts
7 claims: 7 documented. 1 open question
People reported harmed
2 people

AI system as recorded: Westlaw CoCounsel (Thomson Reuters), used by a lawyer's staff member to produce the first drafts of a principal and a reply brief

What Happened

The appeal. A lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act represented an indigent defendant who had pleaded guilty and appealed a two-level enhancement to his sentence for a leadership role in drug-trafficking activities. The lawyer filed a principal brief and a reply in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; the docket dates them 21 October and 26 December 2025.

What the court found. On initial review the court noticed that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results', the name of an artificial-intelligence platform in Westlaw. It found three quotations, two of them repeated in the reply, that appear in none of the cited sources or any other legal authority, and found that the briefs misrepresented the holdings of two Sixth Circuit precedents. It issued a show-cause order on 23 February 2026.

The lawyer's response. The lawyer admitted that he had directed a staff member to upload district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel to create a first draft of the principal brief, worked on the draft for six hours, and repeated the process for the reply. He conceded that the three quotations were produced by artificial intelligence and that he had failed to verify the draft. He said it was his first use of CoCounsel in this way for an appeals brief and that he had not been disciplined in a 40-year career.

Consequences. In a published opinion of 3 April 2026 the court said the misconduct required significant judicial resources and new appellate counsel to file new briefs, further delaying resolution of the defendant's criminal appeal. It ordered that the lawyer receive no compensation for the appeal, forwarded the opinion to the circuit's chief judge to consider disciplinary proceedings and served it on the Kentucky Bar Association's disciplinary clerk. By separate order it removed him, directed the appointment of replacement counsel, locked his briefs and reset the briefing schedule. The court acknowledged his timely response and candour.

Reported harm

The court documents that briefs drafted with Westlaw's CoCounsel and filed unverified by a court-appointed lawyer led it to remove him and order new counsel and briefs, further delaying an indigent defendant's criminal appeal; the lawyer was denied compensation for the appeal and referred for disciplinary consideration.

How Harm Occurred

A legal AI tool drafted appellate briefs that included quotations found in no legal authority and misstatements of precedent; the appointed lawyer filed them without verification, and the court's response removed him and restarted the briefing, delaying the defendant's appeal.

Outcome

Ongoing

The court ordered that the lawyer receive no Criminal Justice Act compensation for the appeal, forwarded the opinion to the Sixth Circuit's chief judge to consider disciplinary proceedings, served it on the Kentucky Bar Association's disciplinary clerk, and by separate order removed him, appointed replacement counsel, locked his briefs and reset the briefing schedule. The merits of the appeal were not decided.

What remains unknown

  • How long the appeal is delayed, and the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. The court found that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and that three quotations in the briefs appear in no legal authority. The lawyer admitted that a staff member used Westlaw's CoCounsel to produce the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations were produced by artificial intelligence. Reading those briefs, the court removed him, ordered new counsel and new briefs for the defendant, and denied him compensation.

7 claims: 7 documented. What the statuses mean

Documented A lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act represented an indigent defendant appealing a two-level leadership enhancement to his drug-trafficking sentence in the Sixth Circuit.

Causal attribution. The court's own description of the appointment and the appeal.

  • opn.ca6.uscourts.gov(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'qualified for a two-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines for his leadership role during drug-trafficking activities.'; 'serving as court-appointed counsel for an indigent defendant through a publicly funded program'
Documented The court found that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results', that three quotations in the briefs appear in no legal authority, and that the briefs misrepresented the holdings of two precedents.

Causal attribution. The court's findings, quoted verbatim in the Volokh post; the opinion PDF carries the same text.

  • opn.ca6.uscourts.gov(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The first tell was the file name of the principal brief:'; '“CoCounsel Skill Results.” CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw’s internal artificial-intelligence'; 'But the purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources.'
  • reason.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The first tell was the file name of the principal brief: "CoCounsel Skill Results." CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw's internal artificial-intelligence platform.'; 'But the purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources.'; 'misrepresent the holdings of both United States v. Washington'
Documented The lawyer admitted that a staff member uploaded district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel to create a first draft of the principal brief, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the three inaccurate quotations were produced by artificial intelligence and not verified.

Causal attribution. The lawyer's show-cause response as the court records it; the court's opinion documents the admission.

  • opn.ca6.uscourts.gov(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'he directed an unnamed “staff” member to'; 'upload district court documents to Westlaw’s CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the'; 'repeated that same process for the reply brief.'; 'He concedes that the three inaccurate quotations'
  • reason.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'he directed an unnamed "staff" member to upload district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the principal brief.'; 'He concedes that the three inaccurate quotations identified above were the product of artificial intelligence, that they do not appear in any legal authorities'
Documented The court ordered that the lawyer receive no Criminal Justice Act compensation for the appeal, forwarded the opinion to the circuit's chief judge to consider disciplinary proceedings, and served it on the Kentucky Bar Association's disciplinary clerk.

Causal attribution. The court's orders.

  • opn.ca6.uscourts.gov(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'shall not be compensated under the Criminal Justice Act for his time spent on'; 'to consider disciplinary proceedings under Sixth'; 'Disciplinary Clerk for the Kentucky Bar Association'
Documented By a separate order the same day the court removed the lawyer, directed the appointment of replacement counsel, locked the briefs he had filed and reset the briefing schedule, which the court said further delayed resolution of the defendant's criminal appeal.

Causal attribution. The court's own account of its separate order and of the delay.

  • opn.ca6.uscourts.gov(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'different appellate counsel to file new briefs—further delaying resolution of'; 'reset the briefing schedule upon appointment of replacement counsel.'
Documented The lawyer said this was his first use of CoCounsel in this way for an appeals brief and that he had not been disciplined in a 40-year career; the court acknowledged his timely response and candour while finding his conduct inexcusable.

Causal attribution. The lawyer's explanations and the court's assessment, as the opinion records them; recorded as mitigation.

  • opn.ca6.uscourts.gov(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'utilizing Westlaw CoCounsel “in this way for a Court of Appeals brief.”'; 'has never been disciplined over his 40-year career'; 'candor in acknowledging his improper use of artificial intelligence.'
  • reason.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'first time utilizing Westlaw CoCounsel "in this way for a Court of Appeals brief."'; 'has never been disciplined over his 40-year career'; 'his candor in acknowledging his improper use of artificial intelligence.'
Documented The docket records that the principal brief for the defendant was filed on 21 October 2025 and the reply brief on 26 December 2025, and that both entries were locked under the order of 3 April 2026.

Causal attribution. Clerk docket entries; they date the filings and do not describe their contents.

  • courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    '***LOCKED PURSUANT TO ORDER ENTERED 04/03/2026***APPELLANT BRIEF filed by'; 'Certificate of Service: 10/21/2025. Argument Request: not requested. [25-5623]'; '***LOCKED PURSUANT TO ORDER ENTERED 04/03/2026***REPLY BRIEF filed by Attorney'; 'Certificate of Service: 12/26/2025. [25-5623]'

Sources

3 sources inspected, from 2 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Sixth Circuit published per curiam opinion, No. 25-5623, decided and filed 3 April 2026; PDF read in full (HTTP 200). Applies to s1.

The Volokh Conspiracy (Reason), 9 April 2026, quoting the same opinion at length; read in full (HTTP 200). Same origin as the opinion. Applies to s2.

CourtListener search API listing of docket entries for Sixth Circuit No. 25-5623 (RECAP), read on 2026-10-19 (HTTP 200); entry descriptions as entered by the clerk. Party and counsel names in the entries are not reproduced. Applies to s3.

Event countries: United States. Affected-person countries: United States. Court countries: United States.

The appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the lawyer practises in Kentucky (opinion).

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-19: Published with communicated_with and informed_decision_about: the court documents that a court-appointed defence lawyer filed briefs drafted with Westlaw's CoCounsel that carried quotations found in no authority, and, acting on those briefs, removed him, ordered new counsel and briefing that delayed the indigent defendant's criminal appeal, and denied him compensation. The harm reaches a criminal defendant who did not use the tool.

People described

An indigent criminal defendant whose appeal was delayed, and the court-appointed lawyer who filed the AI-drafted briefs

People reported harmed in this case

2 people

0 AI participants · 2 other people harmed

Two: the defendant, whose appeal the court says was further delayed, and the lawyer, who was denied compensation and referred. The lawyer's staff member ran the tool and is not counted; no other harmed person is described.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#legal#ai-fabricated-quotations#court-appointed-counsel#criminal-appeal#sanction#cocounsel

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Sixth Circuit removes court-appointed defence lawyer over CoCounsel-drafted briefs with false quotations, delaying an indigent defendant's appeal. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-sixth-circuit-removes-appointed-defence-lawyer-over-cocounsel-drafted-briefs-delaying-indigent-defendants-appeal

BibTeX

@misc{2025_sixth_circuit_removes_appointed_defence_lawyer_over_cocounsel_drafted_briefs_delaying_indigent_defendants_appeal,
  title = {Sixth Circuit removes court-appointed defence lawyer over CoCounsel-drafted briefs with false quotations, delaying an indigent defendant's appeal},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-sixth-circuit-removes-appointed-defence-lawyer-over-cocounsel-drafted-briefs-delaying-indigent-defendants-appeal}
}

Related cases

Medium Unidentified AI research tool

Alabama Supreme Court dismisses two siblings' family-trust appeal as a sanction after their lawyer admits using AI that produced fake citations

On 24 April 2026 the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an appeal by two siblings in a family dispute over living trusts because their lawyer, W. Perry Hall, had filed briefs in which most of the legal authorities were misquoted or did not exist. The court said they appeared to be AI hallucinations, and at a show-cause hearing in February 2026 Hall admitted that many authorities did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them. The court ordered Hall to pay the opposing party's fees and costs of $17,200 and double appeal costs, barred him from filing in the court without a co-signing attorney and referred him to the Alabama State Bar. It said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts. One justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, objected to dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the judgment against the clients on the merits.

Medium vLex, Paxton AI and NotebookLM (reported)

New York federal court enters default judgment against a defendant and orders its lawyer to pay $38,877 after false citations it found AI produced

In a federal trademark suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court on 5 February 2026 struck a company defendant's motion papers and entered default judgment against it as a sanction on its lawyer, after his filings repeatedly cited nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations. The lawyer said he had found and cite-checked cases with AI tools (vLex and Paxton AI) and used NotebookLM to review a later submission; the court rejected his explanations and found he acted in bad faith. On 9 October 2026 the court described the citations as produced by generative AI and ordered the lawyer to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs to the firm of a co-defendant's former lawyer, who had reported the false citations to the court.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows

On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.

Medium Unidentified AI drafting tool

Massachusetts federal court revokes an out-of-state lawyer's admission and orders fees after briefs with false citations; the lawyer admitted AI drafted one

On 25 September 2026 a judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a defence motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against a California-barred lawyer admitted for one case (pro hac vice) to represent the plaintiff. The court found that an opposition the lawyer filed on 21 November 2025 was replete with inaccurate citations, including a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation, and that later oppositions cited a non-existent case. In response to the court's order to show cause, the lawyer admitted using AI to draft the first opposition and explained a belief that the enterprise-level AI software in use did not hallucinate cases. The court revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered the lawyer's firm to pay the defendants' reasonable fees and costs, capped at $10,000. The order does not name the AI product.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents