Arkansas Department of Human Services v. April Ward and Minor Child
Supreme Court of Arkansas · Ark. · Arkansas bar guidance
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs. v. Ward, 2026 Ark. 17, No. CV-25-758 (Ark. Feb. 5, 2026) (per curiam)
- Decided
- February 5, 2026
Summary
Attorney ad litem Dana McClain, responding to an expedited petition for writ of certiorari in a dependency-neglect matter, filed a response containing case law and statutes generated by Microsoft Office Copilot, including a direct quote to a case that could not be located. After a December 11, 2025 show-cause order (Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs. v. Ward, 2025 Ark. 217), McClain admitted she had prompted Copilot with queries such as "can you provide case law to support this argument with citations from Arkansas dependency-neglect law" and intended but failed to verify the output, citing significant personal strain. The per curiam court found a Rule 11(a) violation, noting that sanctions are mandatory under Crockett & Brown, P.A. v. Wilson, 321 Ark. 150 (1995).
- AI tool:
- Microsoft Office Copilot
What sanction did the court impose?
Order of reprimand issued. The court approved McClain's self-imposed sanctions, which included her immediate resignation as attorney ad litem and self-report to the Arkansas Office of Professional Conduct. The opinion warned that under different facts attorneys could face significant fines or suspension or loss of the privilege to practice law in Arkansas. On May 7, 2026, Panel B of the Committee on Professional Conduct cautioned McClain by consent, finding violations of Rule 1.3 and Rule 5.3(b), and assessed $150 in costs (CPC-2026-011).
Why does Arkansas Department of Human Services v. April Ward and Minor Child matter for law firms using AI?
Ward is the rare AI-hallucination order from a state court of last resort, and the rare one whose sanctioned lawyer was an attorney ad litem on an expedited child-welfare appeal rather than a civil litigator. For a managing partner, two features stand out. First, the Arkansas Supreme Court treated genuine personal hardship as mitigation, not as an excuse, and was explicit that future cases could draw fines or suspension. Second, the court credited self-reporting to the Office of Professional Conduct and immediate resignation as part of why a written reprimand was sufficient here, signaling that prompt remediation, not silence, is the path that keeps a Rule 11 referral from escalating.
Sources
Primary sources
- Government primary source
- Government primary source
- Government primary source
- CourtListener opinion (primary source)
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.