Frier v. Hingiss
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin · E.D. Wis. · Wisconsin bar guidance
Conduct
Here a plaintiff's brief opposing a fee motion misquoted a Seventh Circuit case and quoted "Ratzlaf v. Nordstrom," a case the court could not find; the reporter cite led to a Ninth Circuit case.
Consequence
No sanction for the citations. The court cautioned counsel that "such shoddy briefing is never appropriate" and reminded him he is responsible for his filings whatever tools he uses.
Lesson
Here the court said defective citations were especially problematic in a brief opposing a fee motion, and tied its AI reminder to counsel's own responsibility.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Frier v. Hingiss, No. 23-cv-0290-bhl, Order (E.D. Wis. Sept. 15, 2023) (Ludwig, J.), ECF No. 19
- Decided
- September 15, 2023
Summary
Jaylen Frier, injured when a City of New Berlin police sergeant using his phone rear-ended his car, won a $159,246.35 judgment in Wisconsin state court. Before that trial, he also sued the city's former and current police chiefs in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over the same accident. The court dismissed the federal case as precluded on June 29, 2023, and the defendants moved for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. In footnote 1 of its order on that motion, the court wrote that Frier's opposition brief (ECF No. 18) was "rife with errors, frittering away any basic good will that he might expect to receive from the Court." It found that the brief purported to quote Palka v. City of Chicago, 662 F.3d 428 (7th Cir. 2011), but "the language he cites appears nowhere in the decision." It also cited "Ratzlaf v. Nordstrom, Inc., 968 F.2d 946, 950 (7th Cir. 1992)"; that reporter page is the third page of a Ninth Circuit IRS-summons case, United States v. Derr, and "neither Westlaw nor Google indicate that the Seventh Circuit has ever heard a case by the name of Ratzlaf v. Nordstrom." The court added: "Counsel nevertheless quotes from this supposed decision." The order does not name Frier's counsel.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the court wrote "[t]o the extent the briefing was prepared using 'artificial intelligence,'" counsel remains responsible for it; the order does not find AI was used or name a tool)
What did the court warn about?
Judge Brett H. Ludwig granted the defendants' motion and ordered Frier to pay the attorney's fees they incurred after April 24, 2023, the date the state-court judgment made his federal claims precluded, and directed the defendants to submit an estimate and supporting documentation by September 29, 2023. The fee award rests on Frier's continuing to litigate a precluded suit, not on the citation errors. On the citations, the court imposed no sanction and wrote: "The Court cautions counsel that such shoddy briefing is never appropriate, but it is particularly problematic in response to a motion for an award of attorney's fees. To the extent the briefing was prepared using 'artificial intelligence,' counsel is reminded that he remains responsible for any briefing he files, regardless of the tools employed." The court also rejected Frier's argument that the defendants needed to serve a Rule 11 safe-harbor letter, because they sought fees under Section 1988, not Rule 11 sanctions. A later docket entry (ECF No. 24) is an order on the fee motion; it was not reviewed for this entry.
Why does Frier v. Hingiss matter for law firms using AI?
The citation problems in Frier surfaced in a fee dispute rather than on the merits. The court had already dismissed Frier’s federal civil-rights suit as precluded by his successful state-court case, and the defendants sought fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for having to move to dismiss after the state judgment was entered. The court granted fees from April 24, 2023 forward, reasoning that Frier kept litigating after he knew or should have known his claims were barred, and that his counsel’s mistake about claim preclusion was no excuse.
In a footnote attached to its discussion of the authorities Frier relied on, the court identified two defects in his brief. A passage attributed to Palka v. City of Chicago does not appear in that decision. “Ratzlaf v. Nordstrom, Inc., 968 F.2d 946” pointed to the third page of an unrelated Ninth Circuit opinion, and the court found no Seventh Circuit case by that name on Westlaw or Google, yet “[c]ounsel nevertheless quotes from this supposed decision.” The court said these errors undercut “the credibility of his defense.”
The court’s AI language is conditional. It did not find that AI was used and recorded no explanation from counsel; it said that “[t]o the extent” the briefing was prepared using AI, counsel “remains responsible for any briefing he files, regardless of the tools employed.” No sanction followed for the citations. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the court singled out the setting, a brief opposing a request for fees, as one where careless citation is particularly problematic.
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.
- Verify every quotation against the cited opinion. Here the court found that the language attributed to Palka "appears nowhere in the decision."
- Review briefs that respond to fee or sanctions motions with particular care. Here the court said shoddy briefing is "particularly problematic in response to a motion for an award of attorney's fees."
- Train lawyers that responsibility for a filing does not shift to a tool. Here the court reminded counsel that "he remains responsible for any briefing he files, regardless of the tools employed."
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference ('Implied'). The order raises AI only conditionally ("[t]o the extent the briefing was prepared using 'artificial intelligence'") and records no admission or explanation from counsel.
- The later fee-amount order (ECF No. 24, Oct. 18, 2023) was not read; it is not known whether it mentions the citations.