Fuselier v. RisCassi
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division · S.D. Miss. · Mississippi bar guidance
Conduct
Here counsel filed a summary-judgment opposition citing a non-existent Fifth Circuit case found through web searches and twice misquoting a Supreme Court opinion.
Consequence
Rule 11 violation found; the court imposed no sanction and admonished and warned counsel that future conduct of this kind will result in sanctions.
Lesson
Here a switch of research platforms led counsel to web searches, and the unverified result reached the brief under deadline pressure.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Fuselier v. RisCassi, No. 1:25-cv-268-HSO-BWR, Order (S.D. Miss. May 22, 2026) (Ozerden, C.J.), ECF No. 28; Order Directing Attorney Aaron Randall Rice to Show Cause (S.D. Miss. May 1, 2026), ECF No. 25
- Decided
- May 22, 2026
Summary
In a First Amendment case against the Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, plaintiff's counsel Aaron Randall Rice filed a February 5, 2026 response opposing the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The response cited "Rodriguez v. It's Just Lunch, Int'l, 2013 WL 12173926 (5th Cir. 2013)," which the court found "does not exist": the show-cause order stated that the reporter number belongs to an N.D. Cal. opinion and that the caption appears to belong to an S.D.N.Y. case. The response also twice quoted Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky as holding that political slogans are "nondisruptive by nature," a phrase the Supreme Court did not use. On May 1, 2026, Chief Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden ordered Rice to show cause under Rule 11, to disclose any AI use in his research and drafting, to describe his verification steps, and to produce a copy of the Rodriguez opinion. Rice responded that his firm, American Dream Legal, had replaced its Westlaw subscription with Fastcase, which he was unfamiliar with, so he turned to Google searches, intending to verify results in Fastcase. He obtained the Rodriguez citation through those searches, could not confirm its source, and did not verify it while rushing to meet a deadline. He attributed the Mansky errors to carrying an altered, unbracketed quote over from his outline.
- AI tool:
- Possibly a search engine's AI preview (counsel said he found the citation through Google web searches and was "not certain it came from the AI preview"; the court wrote that "in the Court's view it is hard to see what else would have generated the fake case")
What did the court warn about?
The court held that filing a brief with a non-existent case, "regardless of its source," violated Rule 11, and found the Mansky misquotations "the result of a lack of attention to detail." Applying the "least severe sanction adequate" standard, it concluded that "a judicial admonishment is a sufficient remedy" and that "no sanction will be imposed." The court credited that Rice appeared to take responsibility, was apologetic, and described the steps taken to prevent a recurrence: American Dream Legal adopted a "policy requiring attorney training for any future changes to legal research providers and a policy prohibiting the use of AI, including search engines with integrated AI features, for legal research," procured a LexisNexis subscription, and scheduled training. The order concludes that Rice is "ADMONISHED and WARNED that future conduct of this kind will result in sanctions." The May 1, 2026 show-cause order issued the same day the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 24), dismissing the plaintiff's claims with prejudice. The docket shows a notice of appeal filed June 29, 2026 (ECF No. 29).
Why does Fuselier v. RisCassi matter for law firms using AI?
Fuselier shows how a court treats a citation that may have come from an AI preview in ordinary search results rather than from a dedicated AI tool. Counsel said he was skeptical of AI and did not use interactive AI tools for legal research, but that the Rodriguez citation came from web searches and “may have appeared there.” Chief Judge Ozerden did not need to resolve the point. He wrote that “in the Court’s view it is hard to see what else would have generated the fake case,” and added that “in any event,” filing a brief containing a non-existent case, “regardless of its source,” violated Rule 11. The Mansky errors were treated differently, as “the result of a lack of attention to detail,” after counsel produced a revision chronology showing how an altered quote moved from his outline into the brief without brackets.
The disposition turned on remediation. Relying on Fifth Circuit authority that courts “may choose to admonish or reprimand attorneys who violate Rule 11” as a less severe alternative to monetary sanctions, the court found an admonishment sufficient given the violations’ “limited nature,” counsel’s “apparent ownership of the mistakes,” and the changes his firm implemented. Those changes are concrete: attorney training before any future change of research provider, a LexisNexis subscription, and a ban on AI for legal research that expressly includes “search engines with integrated AI features.”
The warning is explicit. The order closes by noting that “[i]n the age of artificial intelligence, all attorneys must remember their obligations under Rule 11,” and states that future conduct of this kind will result in sanctions. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider whether their AI policies reach AI-generated summaries in general search results, since in this case counsel said the citation “may have appeared there.”
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.
- Review how changes of research provider are rolled out. Counsel told the court the firm's switch from Westlaw to an unfamiliar tool led him to Google searches; the firm then adopted a training requirement for future provider changes.
- Consider whether search engines with AI summaries fall within a firm's AI policy. The firm's remedial policy, which the court credited, prohibits AI for legal research, including search engines with integrated AI features.
- Document cite-checking of quotations as well as case names. Counsel attributed the altered Mansky quotation to an unbracketed quote carried over from an outline, and the court found a lack of attention to detail.
- Train attorneys that the source of a bad citation does not change the Rule 11 analysis. The court held that filing a non-existent case violated Rule 11 regardless of its source.
Sources
Primary sources
- The AI source of the Rodriguez citation is not established: counsel said he was not certain it came from a search engine's AI preview, and the court said only that it was hard to see what else would have generated the fake case.