Cite11

A federal appeals court may soon require lawyers to certify they checked their quotes

The takeaway: Courts are moving past "did the case exist?" A proposed federal rule would make lawyers confirm that every quotation in an AI-assisted filing is accurate, and courts on both sides of the Atlantic are already sanctioning lawyers who don't.

The Big Story

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which hears federal appeals from Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, has proposed a rule for filings prepared with generative AI, according to reports from FindLaw, JD Journal and Law Commentary.

The proposal doesn't ban AI. It would require that a person review any AI-assisted filing before it goes in. As reported, that review goes well beyond proofreading. The filer would confirm that:

  • every cited authority exists,
  • quotations and citations are accurate,
  • the legal arguments hold up, and
  • the filing complies with court rules and ethical duties.

The public comment period closed on October 18. A final rule is expected by December 1, and if approved it would take effect January 1, 2027. Reported consequences for skipping the review include treating the issue as waived and striking the filing, on top of ordinary sanctions.

Why does this matter outside those six states? Because it writes down what courts elsewhere are already enforcing. In June, the Ninth Circuit suspended two attorneys from practicing before it for six months after their briefs cited cases that didn't exist and fabricated quotations from cases that did (Lnu v. Blanche, No. 24-4790). The court noted that inaccuracies, not just inventions, can be the bigger danger, because they can go unnoticed.

That's the shift. A made-up case fails the first search. A real case with words the judge never wrote passes it.

It isn't certain the rule will pass. The Fifth Circuit proposed a similar AI certification rule in 2023 and, after pushback from attorneys, decided in June 2024 not to adopt it. Either way, the expectation is the same: the person who signs the brief owns every word inside the quotation marks.

Court Watch

  • Fifth Circuit (Feb. 18, 2026): Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 25-20086. A reply brief contained 16 fabricated or inaccurate quotations attributed to real cases. Counsel was sanctioned $2,500; the court found she used generative AI and didn't check the output.
  • Ninth Circuit (June 2026): Lnu v. Blanche, No. 24-4790. Fake cases and fabricated quotes in an immigration appeal. $2,500 each, six-month suspension from the Ninth Circuit bar, and an order to send the decision to their clients and to judges in their other cases.
  • D. Oregon (2026): Couvrette v. Wisnovsky, No. 1:21-cv-00157-CL. Fifteen references to nonexistent cases and eight fabricated quotations across three briefs. About $110,000 in penalties and fees, claims dismissed with prejudice, and a bar referral.
  • England (Mar. 2026): Rodney v Gee'z Micro Bar and Pitstop. Solicitors cited authorities that didn't support their propositions and admitted they hadn't verified them. Referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. One of 64 UK decisions tracked so far, as reported by Natural & Artificial Law.

Rules & Guidance

  • Tenth Circuit: proposed human-review rule; comments closed Oct. 18; final expected by Dec. 1; effective Jan. 1, 2027 if adopted.
  • Fifth Circuit: similar certification rule proposed in 2023, not adopted (June 2024).
  • Individual judges: a growing number of federal judges have standing orders requiring disclosure or certification of AI use; check the judge's page before you file.

By the Numbers

About 1 in 4. In the AI Hallucination Cases database, 541 of 1,941 decisions involved quotations that were fabricated or altered, real cases with words the judge never wrote (as of October 2026).

Data: AI Hallucination Cases database, Damien Charlotin, CC BY 4.0. Analysis: Cite11.

The Check

Before filing, open each opinion you quote and search it for the exact quoted words. If the phrase isn't there word for word, check for small changes that alter the meaning, like "may" becoming "must" or a dropped "not." It takes a minute per quote, and it's the step a citation check alone doesn't cover.

One question

Who in your office checks the quotes?

Cite11 checks the citations and quotations in a brief against the opinions themselves. cite11.com