Brooks v. Lowes Home Centers LLC

What sanction did the court impose?

The court commended Wilkins "for his candor, honesty, and the remedial measures he has undertaken" but held that these mitigating factors did not excuse his conduct, noting that his own response said he has "extensive experience in using AI" and is "aware of the risks of hallucination and simulation." Wilkins was "personally SANCTIONED" $1,000, to be paid by him personally and not by his law firm, to the Clerk by June 12, 2026, and ordered to complete three hours of CLE on AI-assisted legal practice before December 31, 2026 and certify completion. The order imposes no sanction on LeBlanc. The plaintiff's motion to strike (ECF No. 66) was denied as moot. A footnote records that the parties settled while the court was deciding the issue, and holds that settlement did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to award Rule 11 sanctions.

Why does Brooks v. Lowes Home Centers LLC matter for law firms using AI?

Brooks shows what happened when an error-catching step worked and the correction step did not. By the court’s account of Wilkins’ response, his process included review of Claude’s draft by a human law clerk, and that review found hallucinated quotations. Wilkins then “confronted Claude with the identified errors and entrusted Claude to correct them.” The court’s summary of the result is blunt: “Instead, Claude just made up more stuff.” The second output went into the record without review.

Judge Edwards credited Wilkins’ candor and remedial plan but held that mitigation did not excuse the conduct, relying on the principle that “the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely” and on the Fifth Circuit’s statement in Fletcher v. Experian that unchecked AI use burdens the court. The court stressed that “[i]gnorance of the risks of AI usage is no longer an excuse,” and that here Wilkins “affirmatively knew the risks,” quoting his own description of his “extensive experience in using AI.” “How he then could have blindly and solely trusted Claude to remedy the brief is difficult to fathom.”

The remedy was modest in amount but targeted: $1,000 payable by Wilkins personally, with an express bar on payment by his firm, and three hours of CLE on AI-assisted practice. Co-counsel LeBlanc, who told the court he had no role in drafting, was not sanctioned. The order also notes that the parties’ settlement, reached while the sanctions question was pending, did not remove the court’s authority to act under Rule 11. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the correction of a caught hallucination was itself the point of failure.