Glass v. Foley & Lardner LLP
U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin · W.D. Wis. · Wisconsin bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff in legal malpractice action cited two fabricated cases (S.G. v. SafeSport; Cafasso v. Central Refrigerated).
Consequence
Discovery motion ruled on partially. Warning issued rather than formal sanction. Case later dismissed on unrelated grounds.
Lesson
Magistrate-level orders are now part of the AI-citation case law; non-dispositive motions are no longer safe from Rule 11 review.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Glass v. Foley & Lardner LLP, No. 3:24-cv-00769-jdp, Dkt. 32 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 4, 2025) (Boor, M.J.)
- Decided
- November 4, 2025
Summary
Todd E. Glass, a pro se plaintiff, brought a legal malpractice action against his former counsel Foley and Lardner LLP. In responding to the defendant's motion to dismiss, Glass filed briefing that cited authorities the court could not locate. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor issued a November 4, 2025 order ruling on Glass's motion for jurisdictional discovery (granted in part, denied in part) and separately addressing the citation defects. The order identified two specific fabricated citations: S.G. v. SafeSport, 74 F.4th 864 (7th Cir. 2023), which does not exist in the F.4th reporter at that volume and page, and Cafasso v. Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., 486 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (W.D. Wis. 2007), which does not exist in the F. Supp. 2d reporter at that location. The order noted generative AI tools had "hallucinated" the cited authorities.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI implied; the order describes AI tools that "hallucinate" false case citations
What sanction did the court impose?
Discovery motion granted in part. The court issued a warning rather than imposing a formal sanction, observing that "a party that provides authority to the court that does not actually exist may be sanctioned" and citing prior decisions imposing penalties on both attorneys and pro se litigants for AI-generated false citations. No monetary penalty was imposed; the case ultimately proceeded through subsequent motion practice and was dismissed by Judge Peterson on March 23, 2026 on jurisdictional grounds unrelated to the AI-citation issue.
Why does Glass v. Foley & Lardner LLP matter for law firms using AI?
Glass v. Foley & Lardner LLP is a legal-malpractice action where the pro se plaintiff cited two fabricated cases (S.G. v. SafeSport and Cafasso v. Central Refrigerated Services) in opposing the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The order is one of the first reported W.D. Wisconsin cases in which a magistrate judge issued an AI-citation warning at the non-dispositive motion stage rather than the district judge addressing it on the dispositive motion. The case is also notable for being a legal-malpractice action against a major Wisconsin firm filed by a former client who proceeded pro se; that posture is increasingly common for AI-citation cases (the plaintiff is unrepresented but functionally adverse to a sophisticated defendant). Cross-reference: Mims v. Brown (W.D. Wis. Jan. 29, 2026) (Peterson, J.) (parallel W.D. Wisconsin AI-citation order issued by the assigned district judge in this case).
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 a citation-verification protocol that applies even at the magistrate-judge level for non-dispositive motions; the Boor order shows that magistrates are increasingly comfortable issuing AI warnings on motion practice rather than deferring to the district judge.
- When an opposing pro se litigant cites unfamiliar authority, run targeted reporter-citation lookups on suspicious citations (e.g., F.4th volume/page combinations that do not exist) before drafting a reply; specifying nonexistent citations by name is now the standard mechanism for surfacing AI hallucinations.
- Train litigation associates that legal-malpractice cases brought against firms by former clients often involve self-represented plaintiffs and are a notable risk lane for AI-citation responses; review firm response protocols for malpractice complaints accordingly.