Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · D.C. Ct. App. · District of Columbia bar guidance
Conduct
The bank trustee's appellate brief cited four nonexistent cases found with Google's generative AI search tool and never checked.
Consequence
Brief stricken, redaction alternative rejected, referral to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel; sanctions authority sent to the Rules Committee.
Lesson
Striking the brief can cost the client its merits argument; a firm's no-AI policy did not help where no one verified the citations.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Douglas v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., No. 24-CV-1099 (D.C. Sept. 3, 2026) (per curiam) (published order)
- Decided
- September 3, 2026
Summary
In a pro se appellant's appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in a judicial foreclosure action, the answering brief for appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, filed by the law firm McCabe, Weisberg, & Conway, LLC, cited four cases that do not exist: Abadie v. District of Columbia, Cason v. Nat'l Consumer Co-op Bank, Osborne v. District of Columbia, and Woods v. United States. Responding to an order to show cause, the filing attorney, Loishirl W. Hall, who stated that she had never filed an appellate brief before and has since left the firm, explained that she "used Google's generative artificial intelligence search tool to assist in locating case authority" and did not verify the citations. Two other firm attorneys were listed on the brief, and the court was given no information about their review. The firm represented that it prohibits AI in drafting legal documents but did not provide the policy, and said it "only became fully aware of the situation" after the show-cause order.
- AI tool:
- Google's generative AI search tool (the filing attorney's own description)
- Sanction amount:
- Non-monetary: appellee's brief stricken; matter referred to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
What sanction did the court impose?
In a published per curiam order, the court struck appellee's brief under D.C. App. R. 28, rejecting the firm's proposal to accept the brief with the fake citations redacted because that "would constitute effectively no sanction at all," and referred the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. It also referred to the court's Rules Committee the question of the full scope of its sanctions authority, which the concurrence describes as unclear. No monetary sanction was imposed. The merits of the foreclosure appeal were not decided in this order.
Why does Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company matter for law firms using AI?
Judge Glickman’s concurrence observes that this is “the first reported case in which this court has received a brief containing fabricated citations,” and the per curiam order treats it as “a cautionary tale about the misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) and its consequences for attorneys, their clients, and the courts.” The per curiam grounds the sanction in D.C. App. R. 28, which requires a brief to contain contentions supported by citations to authority, and “[a] hallucinated citation is, at best, no citation at all; indeed, it is worse.”
The per curiam describes the full scope of the court’s sanctions authority as unclear, and the concurrence explains why. It notes that D.C. App. R. 38 reaches frivolous appeals, petitions, and motions “but not briefs,” that Rule 46 is inapplicable, and that the court’s inherent authority requires bad faith, which “does not now appear” on this record. In the concurrence’s words, “Beyond that admonishment and the striking of the brief, our Rules and case law appear to preclude us from sanctioning the attorneys.” The panel therefore sent the question of its sanctions authority to the court’s Rules Committee, while leaving professional-conduct questions to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
The sanction falls on the client’s filing: the answering brief is gone, and the order does not address whether a substitute brief may be filed. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider whether AI features built into everyday search engines are covered by their verification protocols, since the attorney here did not describe using a dedicated drafting tool.
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.
- Document who reviews an attorney's first appellate brief. The court noted Hall's statement that she had never filed an appellate brief before, and that two other listed attorneys gave no account of their review, observing that 'every firm attorney who signed the brief bears some responsibility.'
- Review whether general-purpose search tools with generative AI features fall under the firm's AI policy. The attorney described the tool as Google's generative AI search, and the firm's asserted no-AI policy did not prevent the filing.
- Consider the client consequence: the court struck the represented party's brief in a pending appeal rather than accept a redacted version, and the order does not address a substitute brief.