June 1, 2026 (in 3 days): New York: 22 NYCRR Part 161 takes effect, system-wide AI policy for all UCS courts

Crowder v. Yussman

Kentucky Court of Appeals · Ky. Ct. App. · Kentucky bar guidance

Court sanction

Verified May 14, 2026

Citation
Crowder v. Yussman, No. 2024-CA-0930-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2025)
Decided
October 24, 2025

Summary

Susan Crowder appealed the Jefferson Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment to Dr. Marvin Yussman in a fertility-fraud action. On review, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and separately addressed the appellant's brief, which contained three citations to nonexistent case law. The panel did not name a specific generative AI tool but treated the fabricated citations as the type of error produced by unverified AI-assisted research, reminding counsel that verifying cited authority is an ethical obligation under Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.130(1.1) (competence).

AI tool:
Unspecified generative AI
This case summary is informational only. Verify the underlying opinion or order against the primary source before relying on it in any filing or client matter.

What sanction did the court impose?

No monetary sanction or referral. The court issued a written warning to counsel that submitting a brief without confirming the existence of the cases cited is an affront to the dignity of the court and a breach of the duty of competence under SCR 3.130(1.1). The judgment below was affirmed on the merits.

Why does Crowder v. Yussman matter for law firms using AI?

Crowder is a useful data point for managing partners because the underlying case is a serious, sympathetic appeal (a 1975 fertility-fraud claim against a retired physician) where the appellant lost in part on procedural failings and a brief that cited three nonexistent cases. The Court of Appeals chose a public warning over monetary sanctions, but tied the warning directly to Kentucky’s competence rule, signaling that the next Kentucky panel facing the same conduct can reach for the disciplinary toolkit without breaking new ground. For a small firm, the lesson is that an unverified AI-assisted brief can convert a difficult merits appeal into a published rebuke that follows the firm’s name in every future search.

Sources

Primary sources

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.