Ekeocha v. U.S. Department of State
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · D.D.C. · District of Columbia bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- Ekeocha v. U.S. Dep't of State, No. 25-cv-454 (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2025) (Contreras, J.)
- Decided
- November 19, 2025
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel Dr. Olusegun Asekun filed an opposition to the government's motion to dismiss in an EB-5 visa delay case that contained a fabricated citation to "Litvin v. Blinken, 93 F.4th 1162, 1168 (D.C. Cir. 2024)" (a case that does not appear to exist) and a quotation attributed to Nine Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat v. Kerry, 168 F. Supp. 3d 268 (D.D.C. 2016), that does not appear in the opinion. Judge Rudolph Contreras observed that counsel "may have relied on artificial intelligence to draft" the opposition and admonished him that submitting filings with nonexistent cases and quotations violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1).
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
No monetary sanction or formal Rule 11 show-cause order issued. Because the court granted the motion to dismiss, it "refrains from taking further action against Dr. Asekun at this time," but warned that "if this case somehow returns to this Court, Dr. Asekun will be required to show cause why he ought not be sanctioned for his use of nonexistent cases and quotations."
Why does Ekeocha v. U.S. Department of State matter for law firms using AI?
Ekeocha is a useful data point on the lower end of the AI-hallucination sanctions spectrum: a federal judge identified a fabricated D.C. Circuit citation and a manufactured quotation in plaintiff’s counsel’s brief, named the attorney by name in a published opinion, and put a conditional show-cause order on the docket without imposing fees, CLE, or bar referral. For a managing partner, the lesson is that even a “soft” admonishment lives on PACER permanently and is now searchable as judicial commentary on counsel’s work, and the court’s framing, that Rule 11 and Rule 3.3 “require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely,” is the verification standard firms should expect to be measured against.
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.