Brooks v. Patel

What sanction did the court impose?

At the July 24 hearing the court denied summary judgment "due to Defense counsel's citation to nonexistent caselaw" and declined to extend the dispositive-motion deadline for re-briefing. The parties then settled and stipulated to dismissal on August 4, 2025, with the sanctions question still under advisement. In its September 8, 2025 Order Imposing Sanctions for Use of Fake Legal Authority, Judge Christian Sande held that Lutz violated Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02(b) and Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subd. 2(2), when he "twice submitted a fake, hallucinated case with a fake quote." The court struck the moving memorandum and the reply (Index Nos. 14 and 20), referred Lutz to the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board under Rule 8.3, and ordered him to pay a $5,000 penalty, "imposed on Attorney Lutz and not his client," within 180 days.

Why does Brooks v. Patel matter for law firms using AI?

Brooks is a Hennepin County contract dispute in which the court found the fabricated authority itself, after the opposing party missed it. Both of defense counsel’s summary judgment briefs cited “Hallock v. Nelson,” a 1996 Minnesota Court of Appeals decision that does not exist; the reporter citation leads to an unrelated Nebraska Court of Appeals decision, State v. $3,067.65 in U.S. Currency. The court said it “checked and re-checked (using several staff attorneys)” the citations before accusing counsel, and that it “was the only entity verifying the law in this case.”

The AI use is admitted. In response to the show-cause order, David Lutz wrote that he used AI to prepare both briefs, and the order records his statement that he “failed to properly confirm the accuracy of the Hallock [sic] citation through VLex Fastcase,” which the court describes as the AI research tool he used. At the hearing he said he had caught other fabricated citations from the tool, but not the one used in both briefs, and that he never intended to mislead the court; his letter called the error “entirely unintentional.” The court reasoned that proffering fake law without verifying it “can be seen in no way other than an effort to mislead the Court, regardless of whether the party acted deliberately to mislead the Court or simply engaged in behavior with the same result.”

The consequences came in stages: denial of summary judgment at the hearing, striking of both briefs, an LPRB referral, and a $5,000 penalty on counsel personally. The parties had settled before the sanctions order. The show-cause order (July 18) predated the August 4 dismissal, and the order cites Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subd. 5(b), which bars court-initiated monetary sanctions unless the show-cause order comes before a voluntary dismissal or settlement. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, here, the court treated a single fabricated citation repeated in two briefs as grounds for a monetary penalty and a disciplinary referral, and that its order surveyed Minnesota and national guidance on AI verification in explaining why.