Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter v. Bucks County Community College
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Pa. Commw. Ct. · Pennsylvania bar guidance
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc., E. Pa. Chapter v. Bucks Cnty. Cmty. Coll., No. 1172 C.D. 2025 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Nov. 24, 2025) (memorandum opinion and order) (Cohn Jubelirer, P.J.)
- Decided
- November 24, 2025
Summary
Bucks County Community College's prior appellate counsel filed an opening brief in the Commonwealth Court that contained, in the College's own later admission, "Artificial Intelligence-generated case citations and factual representations." After successor counsel notified the College of the defects, the College filed a November 3, 2025 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Brief. By an unreported single-judge memorandum opinion and order dated November 24, 2025, President Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer denied the motion and struck the original brief. The court then resolved the appeal on the merits without considering any brief from the College (opinion of December 5, 2025, 2025 WL 3491625).
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
Original brief struck; motion to file an amended brief denied; the College proceeded with no appellate brief on file. On the merits, the Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court and entered a preliminary injunction against the College, halting bid solicitation on the HVAC Lab construction project. No monetary sanction, suspension, or disciplinary referral was imposed by the court in the published opinion. The sanctioned attorney is not identified by name in the opinion.
Why does Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter v. Bucks County Community College matter for law firms using AI?
Bucks County is a cautionary case for institutional clients, not just for solo practitioners: the party harmed here was the College, whose appellate position on a multi-million-dollar federally funded construction project went forward with no brief at all because its prior counsel had filed AI-generated authorities. For a managing partner advising a regulated or grant-funded client, the takeaway is that the consequence of an AI-hallucinated filing is not always a Rule 11 sanction against the lawyer. Sometimes it is a struck brief and a lost appeal, with the cost falling on the client.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.
- Identity of the prior counsel who filed the AI-tainted brief is not stated in the published opinion. The specific generative AI tool used is also not identified.
- Whether any separate disciplinary referral or fee-shifting order issued outside the November 24, 2025 memorandum and the December 5, 2025 opinion is not confirmed.