Booker v. The Kroger Co.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division · N.D. Ga. · Georgia bar guidance
Conduct
Counsel cited fake and misrepresented authorities, told the court at a hearing he had not used AI, then admitted in his show-cause response that he had consulted AI tools.
Consequence
Here the court fined counsel $8,000 ($1,000 for each of four authorities, doubled for lying to the court) and ordered proof of the ethics and technology CLE he claimed.
Lesson
Here the court doubled the fine for counsel's "lies to this Court," which included denying AI use at a hearing and feigning confusion about the question.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Booker v. The Kroger Co., No. 1:26-cv-02006-SDG, Opinion and Order of Sanctions (N.D. Ga. Aug. 28, 2026) (Grimberg, J.), ECF No. 66
- Decided
- August 28, 2026
Summary
In an action by Erin Booker against The Kroger Co., defense counsel first raised concerns that plaintiff's counsel, identified in the order as Mr. Johnson, had relied on AI tools in a way that violated Rule 11. After reviewing the filings, Judge Steven D. Grimberg asked counsel at a June 26, 2026 hearing whether he had a response to the allegation that cited cases were nonexistent or miscited and whether he had used any AI tools to prepare his briefs. Counsel first answered "Not that I know of, Your Honor," then "I did not use artificial intelligence." The court then issued an order to show cause highlighting four purported authorities that the sanctions order calls the most egregious examples of "fake, false, and misleading case authorities." In his August 11 response, counsel acknowledged that he "consulted" AI tools in drafting filings, attributed the drafting to "this office," said he "did not understand which cases the Court was asking about," and devoted half the response to seeking sanctions against defense counsel over an unrelated discovery matter. The judge's standing order, entered on the case docket, states that lawyers may use AI tools but "only human beings will be held responsible for the outcome."
- AI tool:
- Unnamed AI tools (counsel denied AI use at a hearing, then acknowledged in his show-cause response that he "consulted" AI tools)
- Sanction amount:
- $8,000 fine to the court registry's general sanctions fund ($1,000 for each of four authorities, doubled for lying to the court); documentation of completed ethics and technology CLE due within 7 days
What sanction did the court impose?
The court found that counsel "repeatedly, has lied to the Court": in presenting legal propositions based on non-existent citations, in denying AI use at the hearing, and in "feigning a lack of understanding" of the court's questions. It fined him $1,000 for each of the four authorities identified in the show-cause order and doubled the total because of his lies, for $8,000 payable within 30 days to the court registry's general sanctions fund. The court declined to award defendant's requested attorneys' fees, explaining that it would be difficult to parse the fees attributable to the fabricated citations and that a court fine is in line with other AI-misuse sanction orders in the district and circuit. Because counsel represented he had completed ethics and technology CLE, including a course titled "ChatGPT, Alexa, and Siri Are Out to Get You!," the court ordered him to file documentation of all such courses taken between June 26 and August 11 within 7 days, and said it would then decide whether further sanctions are warranted.
Why does Booker v. The Kroger Co. matter for law firms using AI?
Booker is a candor case as much as a citation case. The court’s first finding was that counsel “misrepresented legal propositions based upon non-existent citations,” but the structure of the sanction shows where the weight fell. Judge Grimberg set a base fine of $1,000 for each of the four “fake, false, and misleading case authorities” in the show-cause order, then doubled it “as a result of Plaintiff’s counsel’s lies to this Court.” The hearing transcript excerpt in the order shows counsel moving from “Not that I know of” to “I did not use artificial intelligence,” before conceding in writing that he had “consulted” AI tools.
The order also reflects how this judge treats show-cause responses. The court described the response as lacking credibility and “evasive,” noting that counsel referred to the drafting as done by “this office” and spent half the response on an unrelated discovery dispute with defense counsel. It rejected his explanation that he did not understand which cases the court was asking about as “an entirely disingenuous attempt to explain why he lied […].”
The standing order quoted in the sanctions order states: “You can use whatever AI tools you like, but only human beings will be held responsible for the outcome,” including “each and every lawyer listed on the signature block of the filing.” The court chose a fine to the court registry over a fee award, reasoning that a fine “serves not only as a deterrent, but also as a partial remedy for the taxpayer resources expended by the Court in addressing the misconduct.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, on this record, counsel’s lies to the court, including his denial of AI use, doubled the sanction.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Document AI use on each filing so counsel can answer a court's direct question accurately. Here the court doubled the fine for counsel's lies, including his hearing denial of AI use.
- Review the assigned judge's standing orders at case opening; this judge's order, entered on the docket, states that every lawyer on the signature block is responsible for errors in AI-assisted filings.
- Consider that a show-cause response is itself scrutinized. The court faulted a response that shifted drafting to "this office" and argued for sanctions against opposing counsel.
- Verify any remedial CLE claims before making them; the court ordered counsel to document the courses he said he had completed.
Sources
Primary sources
- The order identifies plaintiff's counsel only as "Mr. Johnson" and "Plaintiff's counsel"; his full name is not printed in the order and is not given here.
- The four authorities the show-cause order (ECF 53) highlighted are not named in the sanctions order; ECF 53 was not read.