In re Richburg
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina · Bankr. D.S.C. · South Carolina bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- In re Richburg, No. 25-01297-EG, Adv. Pro. No. 25-80037-EG (Bankr. D.S.C. Aug. 27, 2025)
- Decided
- August 27, 2025
Summary
Paul L. Held, a solo practitioner with approximately 40 years of experience representing Chapter 13 debtors Rodney and Pamela Tisdale-Richburg, used Microsoft Copilot to find South Carolina caselaw and filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction citing two fabricated cases, In re Parkdale, LLC and In re Ahn, along with a misapplied South Carolina Code section. Held admitted he did not verify the citations before filing, explaining that Copilot had provided plausible-looking summaries and that he had not understood generative AI could fabricate sources. Bankruptcy Judge Elisabetta G. M. Gasparini issued a show cause order under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 after Debtors voluntarily dismissed the adversary proceeding.
- AI tool:
- Microsoft Copilot
What sanction did the court impose?
Nonmonetary sanctions imposed. Counsel ordered to complete three hours of continuing legal education on ethics, in addition to any CLE required by the South Carolina Bar, with at least two hours specifically on the ethical use of artificial intelligence in legal practice. Compliance certification due by February 1, 2026. The court noted that Rule 9011(c)(4)(B)(ii) precluded sua sponte monetary sanctions because the show cause order issued after voluntary dismissal, but warned that voluntary dismissal is not a cure-all to avoid monetary sanctions. Counsel also represented he would not seek any fee for the adversary proceeding.
Why does In re Richburg matter for law firms using AI?
In re Richburg illustrates the bankruptcy bench’s growing willingness to issue formal Rule 9011 sanctions for AI-fabricated citations even where the conduct is candidly admitted and the underlying matter is dismissed. Judge Gasparini’s order is notable for two practical takeaways managing partners should flag: voluntary dismissal will not reliably moot a sanctions inquiry, and a court may treat blind reliance on AI as analogous to unsupervised non-attorney practice under Rules 5.3 and 5.5. The order also signals that even firms in states without an AI ethics opinion (South Carolina has not issued one) will be measured against Rule 1.1’s competence-with-technology comment and against guidance from peer state bars.
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.