Dodge v. FirstService Residential Arizona LLC
U.S. District Court, District of Arizona · D. Ariz. · Arizona bar guidance
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Dodge v. FirstService Residential Arizona LLC, No. CV-24-01550-PHX-SMM, Order (D. Ariz. Dec. 8, 2025), ECF No. 35
- Decided
- December 8, 2025
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel Matthew V. Moosbrugger filed a late response to a motion to dismiss in which the court found "nine case citation deficiencies," "including two misrepresented case holdings, five misquoted cases, and one case citation that does not exist." The court noted the deficiencies in its order granting dismissal and, on November 6, 2025, ordered Moosbrugger to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. At the November 21, 2025 hearing he testified that he uses "an artificial intelligence ("AI") software called Federally Lawyer, which is an add-on to the enterprise version of ChatGPT," admitted that he "did not independently review any case citations before submitting the brief," and said he had self-reported to the State Bar of Arizona.
- AI tool:
- Federally Lawyer (counsel testified it is "an add-on to the enterprise version of ChatGPT")
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
No sanction. The court found that "severe sanctions are not warranted," citing counsel's candor, his self-report, the absence of prejudice to the plaintiff, and his loss of any contingency fee, and that "the public humiliation in this matter is a sufficient remedy." It ordered "that no further sanctions should be imposed," encouraged him to attend educational seminars on the legal uses of AI, and directed the Clerk to send copies of the order to the State Bar of Arizona Disciplinary Committee. The order is dated December 8, 2025 and was filed December 17, 2025.
Why does Dodge v. FirstService Residential Arizona LLC matter for law firms using AI?
Dodge shows a court declining sanctions after a candid hearing while still sending its order to the state bar. The order credits counsel for having “openly and honestly admitted to his improper use of AI,” for self-reporting to the State Bar, and for reviewing his other pending matters, and it notes that his only check on the citations was to ask ChatGPT whether they were “all real cases.” It found that “the public humiliation in this matter is a sufficient remedy” and directed that the order go to the State Bar of Arizona Disciplinary Committee.
Firms documenting their citation-review practices may wish to note the verification step the court described: asking the same AI tool whether its citations are real did not count as independent review, and counsel acknowledged that he “is responsible for any pleadings bearing his signature.”