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

The appeal. Two siblings appealed a Mobile Circuit Court summary judgment for a relative in a dispute over the relative's duties as trustee of family living trusts. Their appellate lawyer filed an opening brief and a reply brief that, the Supreme Court of Alabama found, cited numerous invalid, inaccurate or irrelevant authorities; most were misquoted or nonexistent. The appellee's brief pointed out the problem. The reply brief added further fabricated authorities and addressed the issue only in a footnote, which said that an AI research tool had misattributed quotations from two secondary sources.

The admission. The court ordered the lawyer to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the hearing on 4 February 2026 he admitted that many of the authorities in his briefs did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them, accepted responsibility, said he had self-reported to the state bar and paid the appellee's estimated fees and costs of $17,200.

The decision. The court held that briefs built on fabricated authorities left it nothing to review, dismissed the appeal, and said in a footnote that the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts. It also sanctioned the lawyer and referred him to the bar. One justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, wrote that dismissal was not appropriate as a sanction for a lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits. Another justice concurred in the dismissal and wrote that the lawyer's representation on appeal had been of no benefit to his clients.

According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the siblings' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on authorities that were misquoted or did not exist, which he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI; the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 in fees and costs plus double appeal costs and was referred to the state bar.

Supreme Court of Alabama, SC-2025-0106, opinion released 24 April 2026: appeal dismissed; the appellants' motion to file supplemental briefs denied; the lawyer ordered to pay the appellee's attorney fees and costs of $17,200 (he had already delivered a check for that amount on 9 February 2026) and double costs of the appeal, prohibited from filing in the court unless another attorney in good standing signs, and referred to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline (he had also self-reported); his motion to withdraw granted. A justice concurring in part and dissenting in part disagreed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for a lawyer's conduct and would instead have affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits; a second justice concurred in the dismissal but disagreed with parts of the sanctions against the lawyer. The outcome of any bar proceeding is not reported in the inspected source.