Hollinger v. Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division · E.D. Va. · Virginia bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff with a law degree filed at least 16 AI-hallucinated citations across linked dockets, continuing after court notice.
Consequence
Action dismissed with prejudice; fee award declined for inadequate itemization.
Lesson
Continuing to file fabricated AI citations after the court flags the issue is the line between warning and dismissal-with-prejudice.
Verified May 7, 2026
- Citation
- Hollinger v. Enlisted Ass'n of the Nat'l Guard of the U.S., No. 1:25-cv-01349 (LMB/LRV) (E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2026) (Brinkema, J.)
- Decided
- January 7, 2026
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Kevin Hollinger, joined by Hollinger Group Consulting LLC, filed a contract and defamation action against the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS). Defendant moved for an order to show cause regarding apparent hallucinated cases and asked the court to dismiss with prejudice and award fees. United States District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema found that Hollinger's filings cited and misquoted at least three nonexistent or inaccurate authorities (Mainstreet Collection v. Kirkland's, Kidwiler v. Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co., and Saria v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.), with eight more hallucinated cases in a companion proceeding (1:25-cv-1636) and five additional fabrications appearing in subsequent filings through December 29, 2025, after the court had notified Hollinger of the issue on December 5, 2025. Hollinger admitted using AI to generate legal authority and represented he would use only verifiable citations going forward. The court emphasized that Hollinger's possession of a law degree heightened, rather than excused, his duty to verify cited authorities.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI (Hollinger admitted using 'artificial intelligence' to generate legal authority; specific tool not on the record)
What sanction did the court impose?
Dismissal with prejudice. The court granted EANGUS's motion in part, dismissing the civil action with prejudice as a sanction for the pattern of hallucinated citations continuing after notice. The court declined to award attorneys' fees on the ground that EANGUS's fee application was not properly itemized. No bar referral was entered on the face of the order.
Why does Hollinger v. Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States matter for law firms using AI?
Hollinger marks the E.D. Va.’s shift from warnings to dismissal with prejudice as the AI-hallucination response, and frames the law degree of a pro se filer as an aggravating factor under Rule 11. The order does not explicitly cite Rule 11 as the sanction authority but rests on the inherent power and on Hollinger’s pattern of post-notice fabrication. The fee-denial detail is operationally important: a defendant moving for AI sanctions in this district should expect itemization scrutiny on any fee component, and the court here declined fees on that ground alone despite finding the underlying conduct sanctionable. For firms drafting motions to strike or for sanctions in AI matters, the takeaway is that the dismissal lever is now available in this district even before a Rule 11 safe-harbor process completes when post-notice fabrication continues.
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 hold-and-review step the moment a court flags hallucinated citations in any filing; subsequent filings under the same cause are the highest-risk window.
- Fee applications in AI-sanction motions need full itemization; the Hollinger court declined fees solely on application defects.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- The specific generative-AI tool used by Hollinger is not identified in the order; he admitted to 'artificial intelligence' in general terms.
- Whether the order included a separate referral to the bar (Hollinger reportedly holds a law degree though was proceeding pro se) is not stated on the face of the order.