Koeberer v. Weir
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 6th Cir. · Kentucky bar guidance , Michigan bar guidance , Ohio bar guidance , Tennessee bar guidance
Conduct
Appellant's counsel filed briefing with numerous problematic citations identified in a show-cause order; counsel acknowledged the failure.
Consequence
No sanction; published warning that future lapses in this or other Sixth Circuit cases could warrant sanctions.
Lesson
A published warning names the lawyer even without a sanction; the Sixth Circuit expects counsel to carefully examine the accuracy of every citation.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Koeberer v. Weir, No. 25-3541 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2026) (published)
- Decided
- September 24, 2026
Summary
Plaintiff-appellant Elizabeth Wilson Koeberer appealed the dismissal of claims against the trust's attorney and successor trustee, JPMorgan Chase Bank, and others relating to a family trust. The appellate briefing submitted by her counsel, Susan Anne Wasserman of Los Angeles, contained "numerous 'problematic citations'" that the court had described in a show-cause order. In her response, Wasserman acknowledged that she had failed to uphold her ethical obligation. The published opinion does not describe the individual citations or say how the errors arose.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the opinion addresses "problematic citations" identified in a show-cause order but does not attribute them to AI or name a tool)
What did the court warn about?
The panel (Mathis, J., joined by Moore and Nalbandian, JJ.) affirmed the district court's judgment and declined to sanction counsel, but warned that "a failure to adhere to her professional responsibilities going forward in her filings in this case, or other cases in this court, could warrant sanctions," reminding her that she must diligently supervise her "work product and carefully examine the accuracy of every citation." The court relied on United States v. Farris, 171 F.4th 920 (6th Cir. 2026), for the rule that attorneys "have an ethical obligation to verify the citations and propositions they submit to courts."
Why does Koeberer v. Weir matter for law firms using AI?
Koeberer is a Sixth Circuit merits decision on trust-administration and banking claims (the Bank Secrecy Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act’s limitations period, the economic-loss rule, and NACHA rules) that closes with a short section on counsel’s citations. The court had issued a show-cause order describing “problematic citations” in the appellant’s briefing; counsel acknowledged the failure, and the court declined to impose sanctions while issuing a published warning.
The opinion does not say whether the citation problems came from generative AI, and this entry does not assume so. It is included because the Charlotin AI hallucination database lists it, and because the Sixth Circuit’s framing applies whatever the source of the error: under United States v. Farris, “[a]ttorneys have an ethical obligation to verify the citations and propositions they submit to courts; that obligation reflects duties of competence and candor.”
Firms documenting compliance may wish to note that the warning extends to “other cases in this court,” so a later lapse in an unrelated Sixth Circuit appeal could be measured against it.
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 the accuracy of every citation before filing in the Sixth Circuit. The court restated from United States v. Farris that the verification duty reflects the duties of competence and candor.
- Consider the reputational cost of a published warning: the court named counsel in a published opinion even while declining to sanction.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference. The published opinion never mentions artificial intelligence, hallucination, or any tool; it refers only to 'problematic citations' described in the court's show-cause order (D. 56-2), which is not publicly available on the court's opinion site and was not reviewed.