Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · 10th Cir. · Colorado bar guidance , Kansas bar guidance , New Mexico bar guidance , Oklahoma bar guidance , Utah bar guidance , Wyoming bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., No. 24-1391 (10th Cir. Feb. 9, 2026)
- Decided
- February 9, 2026
Summary
Kusmin L. Amarsingh, a Maryland-licensed attorney appearing pro se, filed an appellate brief that cited seven nonexistent cases and attributed propositions and quotations to two real cases that did not contain them. After the panel ordered her to produce the cases or show cause, Amarsingh admitted she had used ChatGPT as a research and drafting aid and had not verified the cited authorities. The panel (Hartz, Moritz, and Rossman, Circuit Judges; opinion by Judge Hartz) imposed sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, finding the appeal frivolous as argued.
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT
- Sanction amount:
- $1,000
What sanction did the court impose?
$1,000 monetary sanction payable to Frontier within 30 days to offset attorney fees and costs, with a sworn certification of compliance required. The court also directed the Clerk's Office to transmit the order to the Maryland attorney-disciplinary authority. The court denied Amarsingh's request to file a corrected opening brief and affirmed the underlying Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
Why does Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Amarsingh is a notable Tenth Circuit data point because the sanctioned attorney was also the appellant proceeding pro se: the panel expressly declined to extend her the leeway typically afforded to nonlawyers, taking judicial notice of her active Maryland bar status. The opinion frames verification of cited authorities as an attorney’s “fundamental duty to the court” and treats reckless disregard of that duty, judged objectively, as sufficient under Rule 38 regardless of subjective good faith. Firms should note that candor, remorse, and CLE completion mitigated the penalty but did not avoid bar referral, which the court (citing Johnson v. Dunn) treated as a baseline rather than an exceptional response.
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.