In re: Sanctions Order of Kenney
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit · La. App. 5 Cir. · Louisiana bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- In re Sanctions Order of Kenney, No. 25-C-389, 2025 WL 2986582 (La. App. 5 Cir. Oct. 23, 2025)
- Decided
- October 23, 2025
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel Connie P. Trieu, in a medical-records invasion-of-privacy suit, filed pleadings citing three entirely fabricated Louisiana cases (Burns v. State, Smith v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp., and Doe v. Southwest Louisiana Hosp. Ass'n), misrepresented the holdings of two genuine cases, and included a false quotation. Trieu's paralegals had cross-checked citations using Google, ChatGPT, and Microsoft Copilot and printed AI-generated case summaries that she read and treated as actual opinions. After defense counsel flagged the errors, Trieu's "errata" filing introduced yet another fabricated citation rather than correcting the record. The trial court (Judge Nancy A. Miller, 24th JDC, Jefferson Parish) sanctioned Trieu under La. C.C.P. art. 863, and the Fifth Circuit (Judge Timothy S. Marcel writing) affirmed.
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Google
- Sanction amount:
- $1,368
What sanction did the court impose?
$1,368 in attorney's fees plus costs of both proceedings, 3 hours of CLE training on the ethical use of generative AI (certificate due to trial court by December 31, 2025), and referral to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board for evaluation of potential Rules of Professional Conduct violations.
Why does In re: Sanctions Order of Kenney matter for law firms using AI?
Kenney is the first reported Louisiana appellate decision to address sanctions for AI-fabricated citations, and it is among the first published cases anywhere involving an attorney who used three different generative AI tools (ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Google) to “verify” citations the same tools had produced. For managing partners, the operative warning is in Judge Marcel’s discussion of the AI-generated case summaries: the printouts contained a “AI responses may include mistakes” disclaimer, omitted panel judges, and used bullet-point formatting no Louisiana reporter would publish, yet counsel still treated them as opinions. The court’s expanded sanction (CLE plus disciplinary referral, on top of the trial court’s fee award) signals that Louisiana appellate panels intend to treat repeat or compounded AI fabrications more harshly going forward, and put attorneys on notice that future similar writs may be deemed frivolous and draw additional penalties under La. C.C.P. art. 2164.
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.