Lewis v. Eagle County Government
U.S. District Court, District of Colorado · D. Colo. · Colorado bar guidance
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Lewis v. Eagle County Gov't, No. 1:25-cv-02269-NYW-NRN (D. Colo. Nov. 14, 2025), ECF No. 32; fee order (D. Colo. Dec. 16, 2025), ECF No. 36
- Decided
- November 14, 2025
Summary
In a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action on behalf of Eagle County airport rescue and firefighting personnel, plaintiff's counsel Sara A. Green of Hardin Thompson PC filed a Complaint that relied on the "20% rule" of 29 C.F.R. § 553.212, which had been amended in 2011 to remove it. The First Amended Complaint then cited four cases that do not exist and others that do not support the propositions for which they were cited. The court found that the citations "bear the hallmarks of generative artificial intelligence," including a misspelled party name and repeated misattributions to the wrong reporters, courts, and years. Counsel "repeatedly denied using artificial intelligence," described the cases as "placeholders to further do research," and conceded at the November 3, 2025 show-cause hearing that "[w]hen you put the whole citation together, yes, it is fictitious." The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action before the court ruled.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified (the court found the citations 'bear the hallmarks of generative artificial intelligence'; counsel denied using AI)
- Sanction amount:
- $28,000 total: $3,000 Rule 11 sanction payable to the Court, plus $25,000 in defense attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (stipulated amount, awarded Dec. 16, 2025), both joint and several against counsel and her firm
What sanction did the court impose?
Judge Nina Y. Wang made the order to show cause absolute and found a Rule 11(b)(2) violation. She sanctioned counsel and Hardin Thompson P.C., jointly and severally, $3,000 under Rule 11(c)(1), payable to the court's registry, and awarded Eagle County its reasonable attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The court declined to convert the voluntary dismissal into a dismissal with prejudice, because the fee award would remedy the prejudice to the county and there was no evidence the plaintiff knew of counsel's conduct. It denied the second motion to amend as moot and directed the Clerk to terminate the action. On December 16, 2025 the court granted the county's unopposed fee motion and ordered counsel and the firm, jointly and severally, to pay the stipulated $25,000 under § 1927.
Why does Lewis v. Eagle County Government matter for law firms using AI?
Lewis turned on citations, not on the superseded regulation that started the dispute. The original Complaint’s reliance on a 20% rule removed from the C.F.R. in 2011 drew the county’s objection, but the Rule 11 violation the court found was the First Amended Complaint’s four nonexistent cases. The court held that the violation stood whatever tool produced them: “there can be no doubt that Ms. Green did not engage in an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.”
For firms documenting AI governance, the case shows two costs landing together. A $3,000 Rule 11 sanction went to the court, and a $25,000 fee award under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 went to the other side, both joint and several with the firm. The court also noted that counsel had described the citations as placeholders for research she never did, which is the gap a pre-filing citation check is designed to close.
Sources
Primary sources
- Whether AI produced the citations is not established. The court found that the error-filled citations 'bear the hallmarks of generative artificial intelligence' (ECF 32 at 12); counsel repeatedly denied using AI, and the court held that the Rule 11 violation did not depend on the answer.