Johnson v. Insight Global, LLC
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division · N.D. Ga. · Georgia bar guidance
Conduct
Here the report noted, crediting the defendant, that the pro se plaintiff appeared to rely on non-existent caselaw that may be the result of generative AI.
Consequence
Here the magistrate judge admonished the plaintiff about his duty of candor and cautioned that further reliance on non-existent case law may result in sanctions.
Lesson
Here the court treated citing non-existent authority as a breach of the duty of candor that applies to pro se litigants as to any other litigant.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Johnson v. Insight Glob., LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05358-SDG-RGV, Final Report and Recommendation (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2025), ECF No. 28
- Decided
- December 2, 2025
Summary
Devon L. Johnson, proceeding pro se, sued Insight Global, LLC in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, and Insight Global removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss. Johnson filed motions to remand, for sanctions against Insight Global, and for other relief. In a footnote to the magistrate judge's final report and recommendation, the court noted that "Insight Global points out that Johnson appears to rely upon citations to non-existent caselaw, which may be the result of generative artificial intelligence," citing Insight Global's opposition to Johnson's sanctions motion. The report does not identify the citations.
- AI tool:
- Not found (the report records the defendant's point that the plaintiff "appears to rely upon citations to non-existent caselaw, which may be the result of generative artificial intelligence"; the court made no AI finding and named no tool)
What did the court warn about?
The report recommended denying Johnson's motions, including his motions for sanctions, dismissing his federal claims, and remanding his state law claims to the Superior Court of Fulton County. In the same footnote, the court admonished Johnson that his "pro se status does not shield him from the 'same duty of candor to the court as imposed on any other litigant,'" quoted authority that "[c]iting imprecise, non-existent legal authority breaches this duty of candor," and cautioned "that any further reliance on non-existent case law may result in sanctions being imposed against him." No sanction was imposed.
Why does Johnson v. Insight Global, LLC matter for law firms using AI?
Johnson v. Insight Global is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in a case a pro se plaintiff filed in state court and the defendant removed. The report recommends denying the plaintiff’s motions to remand and for sanctions, dismissing his federal claims, and sending his state law claims back to state court.
The AI issue appears in a footnote. Recounting Insight Global’s point that the plaintiff appeared to rely on citations to non-existent caselaw, the report said this “may be the result of generative artificial intelligence.” The court did not make its own finding, but it admonished the plaintiff that his pro se status does not relieve him of the duty of candor, quoted authority that citing non-existent legal authority breaches that duty, and cautioned that further reliance on non-existent case law may result in sanctions.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, here, the caution was framed in terms of the duty of candor rather than any rule specific to AI.
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.
- Flag an opponent's non-existent citations in the responsive brief, as Insight Global did here in opposing the plaintiff's sanctions motion; the court then addressed the issue in its report.
- Treat citation accuracy as a candor obligation. Here the court quoted authority that citing imprecise, non-existent legal authority breaches the duty of candor.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the report makes no finding that Johnson used AI or that any specific citation was fabricated; it records Insight Global's assertion (Doc. 17 at 3-4), which was not read.
- Whether the district judge adopted the report and recommendation was not checked; the admonition and caution appear in the magistrate judge's report itself.