Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas · D. Kan. · Kansas bar guidance
Verified April 24, 2026
- Citation
- Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc., No. 22-2324-JAR-ADM (D. Kan. Feb. 2, 2026)
- Decided
- February 2, 2026
Summary
Patent infringement matter. In responding to a Daubert motion to exclude plaintiff's technical expert and to a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's counsel submitted briefs containing 11 defective citations, quotations, or statements of authority including non-existent cases, fabricated quotations attributed to real cases, and misrepresented holdings. Co-counsel Sandeep Seth admitted he used ChatGPT (queried twice, including a request that ChatGPT 'taking the role of a judge, write an order that denies the motion to strike') without verifying the output. Seth did not inform co-counsel or the client of his AI use. Four other attorneys signed or allowed their names on the filings without verifying the cited authority: Christopher M. Joe (lead), Kenneth P. Kula, and Michael W. Doell of Buether Joe & Counselors (Texas), and David R. Cooper of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith (Kansas, local counsel).
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT
- Sanction amount:
- $12,000 total across four attorneys ($5,000 + $3,000 + $3,000 + $1,000); fifth attorney released from monetary sanctions
What sanction did the court impose?
Judge Julie A. Robinson sanctioned all five attorneys for violating Rule 11(b)(2). Offending briefs STRICKEN. All attorneys publicly admonished. Individual monetary sanctions: Seth $5,000 plus revocation of pro hac vice admission to D. Kan., required self-report to state disciplinary authorities (TX and CA), and a required certificate of firm procedures; Joe $3,000 plus a firm-policy certificate; Kula $3,000; Cooper $1,000; Doell released from further sanctions. Court adopted the principle that signing attorneys bear a nondelegable Rule 11 duty to confirm the accuracy of cited authority, and that reliance on co-counsel is not a defense.
Why does Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
The Lexos v. Overstock sanctions order is one of the most detailed published Rule 11 rulings on unverified generative AI in federal court. Judge Robinson’s opinion is notable for three points that are now leading authority in D. Kan. and the Tenth Circuit: (1) the Rule 11 duty to verify cited authority is nondelegable even where co-counsel prepared the filing, so co-counsel who merely signed without reviewing cannot avoid sanctions on ignorance; (2) local counsel who sign on behalf of pro hac vice attorneys lend their imprimatur to the filing and share responsibility for cite-checking; and (3) a firm policy that merely prohibits AI use, without training, verification, and enforcement procedures, does not discharge managerial and supervisory duties under Rules of Professional Conduct 5.1 and 5.3 (as reflected in ABA Formal Opinion 512). The court imposed remedial sanctions specifically designed to change firm behavior: Seth was ordered to implement, and certify, new verification procedures; Joe was ordered to do the same firm-wide at Buether Joe; Cooper’s firm voluntarily adopted comparable policies and extended them to local-counsel engagements.