Browne v. Ciobanu
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 7th Cir. · Illinois bar guidance , Indiana bar guidance , Wisconsin bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se 7th Cir. consolidated appeal R&G classifies as AI-citation; opinion itself imposes Rule 38 sanction for frivolousness.
Consequence
Affirmed; $750 Rule 38 sanction; ordered to pay Ciobanu's reasonable attorney's fees; filing bar pending payment.
Lesson
R&G classifies a matter as AI-citation when only the underlying briefs evidence AI use; panel can sanction without reaching AI.
Verified May 11, 2026
- Citation
- Browne v. Ciobanu, Nos. 25-1441 & 25-2237 (7th Cir. Dec. 5, 2025) (per curiam) (Hamilton, Jackson-Akiwumi, Lee, JJ.)
- Decided
- December 5, 2025
Summary
Pro se appellant Kathy Browne filed consolidated appeals from a judgment of the Northern District of Indiana (Hammond Division, Judge Gretchen S. Lund) dismissing her fraud and settlement-validity claims against Indiana attorney Andrea L. Ciobanu with prejudice. Browne's appellate briefing argued, among other things, that the district court's orders contained a scrivener's-error reference to "Mr. Back" that misled the court. The Seventh Circuit per curiam panel (Hamilton, Jackson-Akiwumi, Lee) characterized the Mr. Back reference as "perhaps a scrivener's error" that "neither misled the court nor prejudiced Browne" and rejected the underlying fraud and settlement-validity arguments as recycled rehashing. R&G's AI Court Order Tracker classifies this matter as an AI-citation case, but the panel order itself does not enumerate fabricated citations or use AI-specific language.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI inferred from R&G AI Court Order Tracker classification; the published opinion itself does not mention AI, ChatGPT, generative tools, or hallucinations. The AI-conduct claim rests on the appellant's underlying briefs rather than on findings in the panel order.
What sanction did the court impose?
Dismissal with prejudice affirmed. Court imposed a $750 sanction against Browne under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for a frivolous appeal, ordered her to pay Ciobanu's reasonable attorney's fees, and imposed a filing bar pending payment of the sanction.
Why does Browne v. Ciobanu matter for law firms using AI?
Browne v. Ciobanu is a useful test case for how external trackers classify AI-citation matters and how those classifications may diverge from the panel’s published findings. R&G’s AI Court Order Tracker includes Browne in its Seventh Circuit AI-citation list, which is the basis for inclusion in this database. The panel’s opinion itself, however, contains no reference to AI, ChatGPT, generative tools, or hallucinations; the only citation pathology the panel discusses is a single “Mr. Back” reference that the panel characterizes as “perhaps a scrivener’s error” that did not mislead the court. R&G’s classification must therefore rest on AI conduct visible in Browne’s underlying briefs rather than in the panel’s findings, which means the AI dimension of this matter is unverified at the panel-order level.
The Rule 38 sanction itself is straightforward and well-documented: $750, plus attorney’s fees, plus a filing bar pending payment. The Seventh Circuit’s panel grounds the sanction on traditional frivolous-appeal analysis (recycled arguments from prior litigation, collateral attack on a settlement, lack of any meritorious appellate issue) without invoking AI. For firms tracking AI-citation sanctions, the operational lesson is that R&G’s classification is a useful lead but not a substitute for reading the panel’s published analysis. Where the panel’s analysis does not name AI, the sanction should be cited as a Rule 38 frivolous-appeal sanction with the AI dimension flagged separately rather than as the rationale.
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.
- Frivolous-appeal sanctions under FRAP 38 ($750 here) and a contingent filing bar can attach without the panel making any AI-specific finding. Firms representing prevailing appellees should request Rule 38 sanctions on traditional frivolousness grounds even where AI conduct is suspected; the AI dimension does not need to carry the request.
- When an opposing party's brief is AI-generated but the opposing party's frivolousness can be demonstrated on traditional grounds (recycled arguments, prior-litigation collateral attack), pursue both bases. The panel may sanction without reaching the AI question.
- Filing-bar-pending-payment is an emerging 7th Cir. remedy that effectively converts a $750 sanction into an ongoing access barrier; firms tracking pro se vexatious-litigant patterns should note this remedy as available without a separate vexatious-litigant petition.
Sources
Primary sources
- The published opinion does not contain any reference to AI, ChatGPT, generative tools, or hallucinated citations. R&G's AI Court Order Tracker source-classifies this matter as an AI case based on the appellant's underlying briefs rather than the panel's findings; identifying which specific citations in Browne's appellate briefs were AI-generated would require pulling the underlying brief filings from PACER, which was beyond this verification pass.
- No Westlaw assignment is visible in the panel-order text at this verification pass.