In the Interest of Q.C. and P.C., Children
Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District (Fort Worth) · Tex. App. · Texas bar guidance
Conduct
Mother's counsel-filed opening brief cited a nonexistent case; the amended brief cited nonexistent portions of case law and quoted language not found in the cited cases.
Consequence
No sanction or warning. The court held Mother to her original brief's issues, citing her representation that the amendment would not expand them, and affirmed.
Lesson
Here the court noted the defective authority in passing and decided the appeal on briefing rules and the merits; it took no action on the citations themselves.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- In the Interest of Q.C. and P.C., No. 02-24-00278-CV (Tex. App.-Fort Worth July 30, 2026) (Birdwell, J.) (mem. op. on reh'g)
- Decided
- July 30, 2026
Summary
Appellant K.C. (Mother) appealed a Tarrant County judgment modifying her conservatorship rights, custody arrangements, and child-support obligations. The court stated that Mother "was represented by counsel during portions of her appeal, including when her original, amended, and reply briefs were filed." Her original opening brief, filed in May 2025 after multiple extensions, advanced six issues in legal analysis that "spanned just five pages with zero record references and a citation to a nonexistent case." Mother then obtained leave to file an amended opening brief after stating that it "correct[ed the] technical deficiencies, incorporate[d] accurate citations to the record and legal authority, and present[ed] the substantive arguments in a clear, organized manner," and representing that it "w[ould] not expand issues." The court found that the amended brief was nearly three times as long and raised new issues, and in a footnote it stated that the amended brief "cited to portions of case law that did not exist and quoted statements nowhere to be found in the cited case law." The opinion does not identify the nonexistent case or the misquoted authorities and does not name counsel.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the opinion notes a citation to a nonexistent case and quotations "nowhere to be found in the cited case law" but does not attribute them to AI or name a tool)
- Amount or terms:
- None; the court noted the defects in the text and a footnote and took no action on them
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
In a memorandum opinion on rehearing by Justice Birdwell, issued on the court's own motion to replace its July 9, 2026 opinion, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment and denied Mother's pending motions. It held that Mother was bound to the issues in her original opening brief, which she conceded were not briefed in accordance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure; that she had leave to remedy briefing deficiencies, not to raise new issues; and that "we are not inclined to reward dishonesty," referring to her representation that the amended brief would not expand the issues. It then held that even if leave had been granted, all eight amended issues failed on the merits. The court imposed no sanction and issued no warning or referral in connection with the nonexistent case or the misquotations; it mentioned them only in describing the briefing. The court's docket shows a motion for rehearing of this opinion filed August 14, 2026 and denied August 20, 2026.
Why does In the Interest of Q.C. and P.C., Children matter for law firms using AI?
The court’s treatment of the defective authority in this family-law appeal is brief. In its procedural history, the Fort Worth court described the original opening brief as five pages of analysis “with zero record references and a citation to a nonexistent case,” and a footnote added that the amended opening brief “cited to portions of case law that did not exist and quoted statements nowhere to be found in the cited case law.” The opinion does not name the cases, does not mention artificial intelligence, and takes no action on either point.
What the court did act on was the amended brief’s scope. Mother had obtained leave by representing that the amendment would correct deficiencies, incorporate accurate citations, and not expand the issues. The court found the amended brief nearly three times as long and raising new issues, held Mother to the issues in her original brief, and stated that “we are not inclined to reward dishonesty.” It then reviewed the eight amended issues anyway and found each one failed.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that an amended brief filed to cure defects is itself a representation to the court. Here the amendment promised accurate citations to legal authority and, by the court’s account, still contained authority that did not exist.
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 representations made in a motion for leave to amend a brief. The court held Mother to her statement that the amendment "w[ould] not expand issues" and wrote that "we are not inclined to reward dishonesty."
- Verify citations in an amended brief filed to cure defects; here the amended brief, which Mother said "incorporate[d] accurate citations to the record and legal authority," itself contained authority the court said did not exist.
- Document record references for each appellate issue. The court described the original brief's analysis as five pages with "zero record references."
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference; the opinion does not mention artificial intelligence.
- The opinion does not name the attorney who filed the briefs; the court's docket shows a motion to withdraw attorney granted January 22, 2026, but which attorney filed which brief was not checked against the briefs themselves.