Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson, et al.
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · E.D. La. · Louisiana bar guidance
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Gentry v. Thompson, No. 25-1260, 2026 WL 787563 (E.D. La. Mar. 20, 2026) (Barbier, J.)
- Decided
- March 20, 2026
Summary
Defendants' counsel filed a memorandum containing nine case citations, of which the second and third were nonexistent. The court noted unusual bullet-point formatting in the brief and concluded counsel had not read the cases cited. The court imposed a monetary sanction and a formal admonishment after finding counsel had relied on ChatGPT-generated authority without verification.
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT
- Sanction amount:
- $1,250
What sanction did the court impose?
$1,250 monetary sanction and formal admonishment of counsel for filing a memorandum with fabricated case citations generated by ChatGPT.
Why does Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson, et al. matter for law firms using AI?
Gentry v. Thompson is a useful illustration for managing partners because the sanction was small but the reputational mechanics were not: the court documented that counsel filed bullet-formatted citations they had never opened. A nine-citation brief with two fabrications shows that partial verification is not verification. Firms whose review workflows assume “most of the cites checked out” as a pass condition should treat this order as evidence that opposing counsel and the bench will read every citation, not a sample.
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.