In re Paula M. Miller
Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (Houston) · Tex. App. (1st Dist.) · Texas bar guidance
Conduct
A mandamus petition in an election-eligibility dispute contained caselaw attributions and quotations that the concurring Chief Justice said strongly appear AI-fabricated.
Consequence
Here the panel denied mandamus for an incomplete record without addressing the citations; a concurrence said such conduct will lead to striking briefs and State Bar referral.
Lesson
In this case a concurring opinion, not the panel, put counsel on notice that unverified AI research breaches the duty of candor to the court.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- In re Paula M. Miller, No. 01-26-00319-CV (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 23, 2026) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.); id. (Adams, C.J., concurring)
- Decided
- April 23, 2026
Summary
Relator Paula M. Miller petitioned the First Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus challenging the Fort Bend County Democratic Party Chairwoman's ruling that declared her ineligible for the general election. The panel (Chief Justice Adams and Justices Caughey and Morgan) denied relief in a per curiam memorandum opinion on April 23, 2026. Chief Justice Terry Adams filed a separate concurring opinion "to note that the mandamus petition here has attributions and quotations to caselaw which strongly appear to be AI-fabricated hallucinations." The concurrence does not identify the citations or quotations at issue, name counsel, or state how the errors were confirmed. It describes filing "a document in our Court with fictitious or misleading citations--whether generated by AI and not checked by a human, or otherwise" as "a serious breach of candor that this Court cannot tolerate," citing Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and 38.9 and Schlafly v. Schlafly, and quotes United States v. Hayes (E.D. Cal. 2025): "Citing nonexistent case law or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is making a false statement to a court. It does not matter if [generative AI] told you so."
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (only a concurrence says the petition's attributions and quotations "strongly appear to be AI-fabricated hallucinations"; the per curiam opinion is silent; no tool named)
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
The per curiam memorandum opinion denied mandamus relief on a record ground: "A relator has the burden to file a complete record showing entitlement to mandamus relief," and "[t]he relator here has not filed such a record." It dismissed pending motions as moot and does not mention the citations or AI. No sanction was imposed and the petition was not struck. In his concurrence, Chief Justice Adams wrote that counsel who use AI for legal research before the court "must do so with great care," that "[t]rusting AI for legal research without verifying that the cases actually contain quoted language and stand for the proposition for which they are cited violates counsel's ethical duty to this Court," and that such conduct "will require the Court to take the necessary corrective action including, but not limited to, striking the offending brief and reporting counsel to the State Bar." That warning is the concurring Chief Justice's, addressed to counsel generally; the panel warned and sanctioned no one.
Why does In re Paula M. Miller matter for law firms using AI?
In re Paula M. Miller is a short mandamus denial in which the AI issue appears only in a concurrence. The per curiam memorandum opinion disposed of the petition on a threshold ground: under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a), a relator must file a complete record showing entitlement to mandamus relief, and this relator had not. The opinion does not mention the petition’s citations.
Chief Justice Adams wrote separately “to note that the mandamus petition here has attributions and quotations to caselaw which strongly appear to be AI-fabricated hallucinations.” The phrasing is hedged, and the concurrence does not identify the defective authorities or describe how they were checked. It treats the problem as one of candor rather than technology: filing “fictitious or misleading citations—whether generated by AI and not checked by a human, or otherwise” is “a serious breach of candor that this Court cannot tolerate,” citing Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and 38.9.
The concurrence closes with guidance addressed to counsel generally: “Always ‘trust and verify’ the accuracy and validity of your results,” and failure to verify “will require the Court to take the necessary corrective action including, but not limited to, striking the offending brief and reporting counsel to the State Bar.” Because those words come from one justice’s concurrence and not from the panel’s opinion, they describe what the concurring Chief Justice expects rather than a holding. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the only consequence in the record was a concurring justice’s written warning, while the petition itself failed for an incomplete record.
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.
- Verify that every case cited in a mandamus petition contains the quoted language and supports the stated proposition. Here the concurrence flagged attributions and quotations to caselaw in a mandamus petition.
- Review the record requirements for original proceedings alongside citation checks. The per curiam opinion denied relief because the relator did not file a complete record under Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a).
- Consider that a concurrence can state the corrective measures a court may use. Chief Justice Adams named striking the offending brief and reporting counsel to the State Bar.
Sources
Primary sources
- The AI assessment is a single concurring justice's, stated with a hedge ('strongly appear to be AI-fabricated hallucinations'). The per curiam opinion makes no finding about the petition's citations or AI use.
- The concurrence does not identify which citations or quotations in the petition were defective; the petition itself (a 26 MB filing) was not reviewed, and no specific fabricated authority is asserted here.
- Counsel for the relator is not named in either opinion and is not named here.