Dillon v. Stephenson
U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma · W.D. Okla. · Oklahoma bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- Dillon v. Stephenson, No. CIV-25-484-SLP (W.D. Okla. Mar. 11, 2026) (Palk, J.)
- Decided
- March 11, 2026
Summary
Plaintiffs' counsel filed a Response brief opposing the School District's motion to dismiss that contained incorrect citations. Counsel filed a Notice of Incorrect Citation, after which Judge Scott L. Palk directed both sides to disclose whether generative AI was used. Plaintiffs' counsel represented that "AI was not used to generate any content" but acknowledged reliance on an "AI research assistant" that "did not supplant counsel's independent review of cases." On its own review, the Court identified three additional defective citations in the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act portion of the brief: Lane v. Buchanan, 2021 OK CIV APP 8 (case does not exist); Hall v. GEO Group, Inc., 2021 OK CIV APP 36 (real Oklahoma Supreme Court case with the same name exists, but reporter cites are wrong and the case does not support the proposition); and Conley v. Board of Regents, 2002 OK CIV APP 84 (case does not exist). The Court suggested these may have resulted from reliance on a generative-AI program and cited Rule 11(b)(2)'s "inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" requirement.
- AI tool:
- Implied (AI research assistant; specific tool not identified)
What sanction did the court impose?
Strong admonishment to Plaintiffs' counsel that any future impermissible use of generative AI before this Court will result in sanctions. No monetary sanction or referral imposed in this order. Underlying motion to dismiss granted: Title IX and Section 1983 claims against the School District dismissed without prejudice; Title IX claim against Stephenson dismissed with prejudice; state-law claims dismissed without prejudice.
Why does Dillon v. Stephenson matter for law firms using AI?
Dillon is a useful counterexample for managing partners who think disclaimer language insulates a firm. Plaintiffs’ counsel here told the court that AI “was not used to generate any content” and that an AI research assistant “did not supplant counsel’s independent review.” Judge Palk then read the brief himself and found three more bad citations beyond the ones counsel had self-reported, including two cases that simply do not exist. The court declined to impose a monetary sanction this time but used Rule 11(b)(2)‘s “inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” language to put counsel on notice that the next instance results in sanctions. The takeaway: a Notice of Incorrect Citation does not cure the underlying verification failure, and partial AI disclosures invite the court to audit the rest of the brief.
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.
- The specific generative-AI tool used by counsel is not identified in the order; counsel referred only to an unnamed "AI research assistant."