Kevin Leiske et al. v. Robert Gregory Kidd et al.
Delaware Court of Chancery · Del. Ch. · Delaware bar guidance
Conduct
Here counsel filed a brief revised with a GenAI tool that contained fictitious citations and quotations, then removed quotation marks but kept the unsupported propositions.
Consequence
Here the court ordered the signing partner and his firm to show cause why they should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(c); no ruling located.
Lesson
Here the court held counsel cannot discharge Rule 11 duties by relying on a paralegal, and required the firm itself to explain its AI policies.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Leiske v. Kidd, C.A. No. 2025-0426-CDW (LWW), Letter Order to Show Cause (Del. Ch. July 1, 2026) (Will, V.C.)
- Filing date
- July 1, 2026
Summary
In an advancement case pending before a Magistrate in Chancery, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will was assigned to resolve exceptions to the Magistrate's final report. On January 22, 2026, the plaintiffs filed an answering brief opposing the defendants' exceptions. The defendants' January 27 reply identified problems in the brief, which the court described as "fictitious citations, fabricated quotations, and hallucinated legal propositions." The next day, plaintiffs' counsel filed a letter acknowledging the use of a GenAI tool to revise the brief's text and admitting failure to verify the citations before filing, attributing the oversight to a paralegal's review, and filed a corrected brief. The court stated that the correction "removed quotation marks around erroneous statements of law" but "did not correct the inaccurate descriptions"; for example, the corrected brief still relied on Perconti v. Thornton Oil Corp. for a principle the court stated is absent from that decision. Defense counsel's next letter also identified "similar citation problems in the plaintiffs' summary judgment briefing." On January 29, counsel wrote again, faulting defense counsel for not meeting and conferring before raising the errors, insisting the cited authorities "are real" and "support the arguments advanced," and accusing the defendants of seeking a "litigation advantage." The court retained jurisdiction when it resolved the exceptions on February 2, 2026.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI tool, not named (per the order, plaintiffs' counsel filed a letter "acknowledging the use of a generative artificial intelligence ('GenAI') tool to revise the text of the Answering Brief")
What is the current procedural posture?
On July 1, 2026, Vice Chancellor Will issued a letter order holding that the submission of hallucinated legal propositions raises an inference of a Rule 11(b) violation, that the duty of candor and the Rule 11 inquiry duty are nondelegable, and that counsel "cannot discharge those obligations by relying on a paralegal, much less on an artificial intelligence program." She ordered Richard P. Rollo, Esq., the signatory to the brief and letters, and Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. to show cause why they should not be sanctioned under Court of Chancery Rule 11(c) and the court's inherent authority. By July 15, 2026, Rollo was to file an affidavit covering how the GenAI tool was used, the cite-checking process and the paralegal's instructions, and why quotation marks were removed while flawed propositions were kept; the firm was to file an affidavit covering its GenAI policies in December 2025 and January 2026, how they were communicated, its safeguards and training, and any exceptional circumstances against joint responsibility. The court will then decide whether a hearing is needed. No ruling on sanctions has been located.
Why does Kevin Leiske et al. v. Robert Gregory Kidd et al. matter for law firms using AI?
Vice Chancellor Will’s order requires sworn evidence from the law firm as well as from the signing lawyer. Relying on Court of Chancery Rule 11(c)(1), which provides that “[a]bsent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, or employees,” the court reasoned that “[b]ecause this incident may implicate the firm’s training, supervision, and deployment of GenAI, the firm must answer alongside the individual signatory.” The firm’s affidavit must describe its written GenAI policies in effect in December 2025 and January 2026, how they were communicated, the safeguards and training it has adopted or plans, and any exceptional circumstances.
The order treats counsel’s response to the error as an aggravating fact. The corrected brief “merely deleted quotation marks while preserving the fabricated legal synthesis,” and counsel’s later letter insisted on meet-and-confer and defended the authorities as real. The court rejected the meet-and-confer point directly: “There is nothing to negotiate or compromise when an attorney submits false citations to a tribunal, and opposing counsel is justified in bringing such misrepresentations directly to the court’s attention.”
The court also restated its view of GenAI in practice, stating, with a quotation from its earlier decision in An v. Archblock, that using GenAI in preparing court filings is “not inherently problematic,” and adding its own proviso that the attorney or litigant must carefully verify the accuracy of the output. The matter is pending. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider whether their AI policy, training records, and supervision practices could be described in a sworn affidavit if a court asked.
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.
- Document the firm's GenAI policies and how they are communicated to attorneys and paralegals. The court directed the firm to file an affidavit describing its policies in effect when the brief was filed and how they were communicated.
- Review corrections after an AI error for substance, not form. The court faulted a corrected brief that removed quotation marks but kept the inaccurate legal propositions.
- Consider that a meet-and-confer objection may not apply. The court stated there is nothing to negotiate when false citations reach a tribunal and that opposing counsel may raise them directly.
- Train staff on the limits of delegated cite-checking. The court held the duty of candor and the Rule 11 inquiry are nondelegable.
Sources
Primary sources
- Status after the July 15, 2026 affidavit deadline is unknown. A search of the courts.delaware.gov opinions list (Court of Chancery, 2026) for 'Leiske' on 2026-09-28 returned only three items in this case: the Magistrate's February 12, 2026 letter decision, the February 2, 2026 letter opinion resolving exceptions, and this July 1, 2026 letter order to show cause. The Court of Chancery docket (File & ServeXpress) is not publicly accessible and was not checked; a later ruling may exist that the court has not posted.