James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division · E.D. Mich. · Michigan bar guidance
Conduct
Counsel's Social Security brief misstated the medical record (speech 'notably off,' 'numerous seizures') and she did not correct it after the Commissioner flagged it.
Consequence
Here the court imposed non-monetary Rule 11 sanctions: four NOSSCR ethics and advocacy CLE courses and a review of the firm's pending E.D. Mich. cases.
Lesson
Here counsel's explanation (unverified summaries and prior drafts) did not avoid Rule 11 sanctions for misstated record facts.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:26-cv-10137, Opinion and Order Issuing Rule 11 Sanctions (E.D. Mich. July 13, 2026) (Morris, M.J.), ECF No. 17
- Decided
- July 13, 2026
Summary
In a Social Security disability appeal, attorney Erin Rich of the Law Offices of Kelly, Riggs, & Mansour, PLC (dba Disability Law Group) filed a summary judgment motion that, the court found, misstated the administrative record. The brief said a May 31, 2023 provider "observed that his speech was notably off," when the physician wrote, "I did not notice that his speech was off notably at all." It described primary care records as documenting ongoing post-hospitalization treatment when the cited records predated the alleged disability period by eight to thirteen months, and it said new evidence documented "numerous seizures" when the cited pages recorded one generalized seizure. The Commissioner flagged the problems and Rich did not correct them. Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris, presiding by consent, issued an order to show cause that also detailed prior recent misconduct. In her response and at the July 8, 2026 hearing, Rich accepted responsibility, withdrew the statements, and explained that they "arose from reliance on prior attorney work product, prior summaries, and draft language that were not independently reverified against the administrative record with sufficient care before filing." The order's footnote records her admission that the firm occasionally uses AI to summarize voluminous medical records, though she could not be certain about this case.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (counsel attributed the misstatements to prior work product, prior summaries, and draft language; she admitted her firm occasionally uses AI to summarize medical records but, per the order, could not be certain whether it was involved here)
- Sanction amount:
- Non-monetary Rule 11 sanction on attorney Erin Rich and her firm: four specified NOSSCR continuing legal education courses with completion report due September 14, 2026; review of pending E.D. Mich. cases for similar falsities and amendment where necessary
What sanction did the court impose?
The court sanctioned Rich and her firm under Rule 11, finding that she made "affirmative misrepresentations and falsehoods" in the brief and that the falsities were willful (by someone in the firm's chain of command). It found the firm's corrective measures and Rich's acceptance of responsibility sufficient to make a monetary sanction unnecessary, but, citing her multiple prior warnings, her similar pattern of misconduct, her long experience in Social Security work, and the time the court and the Commissioner spent identifying the falsities, it imposed other sanctions. Rich must complete four specified continuing legal education courses offered by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives, including one on supervision of "Staff, Contractors, and Robots," and report completion by September 14, 2026. Rich and her firm must also review their pending Eastern District of Michigan cases for similar falsities and move to amend where necessary. The court encouraged, but did not order, classes on ethical AI use.
Why does James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security matter for law firms using AI?
James F. is a Rule 11 case about misstated facts rather than invented case law. Magistrate Judge Morris found that the plaintiff’s summary judgment brief turned a physician’s note that the claimant’s speech was not “off notably at all” into a statement that it was “notably off,” cited pre-disability records as evidence of post-hospital treatment, and converted one generalized seizure into “numerous seizures.” The court said that a reasonable pre-filing inquiry, “which includes reading the documents one uses to support her contentions,” would have caught the errors, and that counsel should have corrected them once the Commissioner pointed them out.
The AI connection is limited and the order is careful about it. Counsel explained that the statements came from prior attorney work product, prior summaries, and draft language that were not reverified. In a footnote the court records her admission that her firm occasionally uses AI to summarize voluminous medical records, while noting she could not be certain in this case. The court observed that it appeared counsel “used predetermined arguments, searched the record for proof, and then” misstated facts to fit them. It also noted that Rich had been warned about potential AI misuse in an earlier E.D. Mich. case, Tiffany K. v. Commissioner of Social Security.
The sanction is calibrated to the firm’s remediation. Rich described a new peer-review process with citation-by-citation verification, added attorney review without reliance on prior work product, referral of some matters to other firms, and a new attorney training program. The court found those measures and her acceptance of responsibility made a monetary sanction unnecessary, and instead ordered targeted CLE on ethics, advocacy, and supervision, plus a review of the firm’s other pending cases in the district.
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 record citations against the underlying documents, not against summaries. Rich attributed the falsities to prior work product, prior summaries, and draft language not reverified against the administrative record.
- Review whether AI-generated summaries of medical records are checked before briefs rely on them. The order notes counsel's admission that her firm occasionally uses AI to summarize voluminous medical records.
- Document corrective measures once a problem surfaces. The court credited the firm's peer review with citation-by-citation verification, added attorney review, and a new training program in declining a monetary sanction.
- Consider how prior warnings in other cases affect the sanction. The court weighed Rich's multiple prior warnings, including the Tiffany K. footnote, and her pattern of similar conduct.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the order does not find that AI produced the misstatements. It records only counsel's admission that her firm occasionally uses AI to summarize medical records and that she could not be certain in this case. The tracker's AI coding is a Charlotin inference.
- The 'prior recent misconduct' and 'multiple warnings' the order refers to are detailed in the order to show cause (ECF No. 14), which was not read; only the Tiffany K. warning is identified in this order.