McPhaul v. College Hills OPCO, LLC
U.S. District Court, District of Kansas · D. Kan. · Kansas bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- McPhaul v. College Hills OPCO, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-02337-JWB-BGS (D. Kan. Jan. 6, 2026)
- Decided
- January 6, 2026
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel Jonathan Steele filed a response to a motion to dismiss containing multiple fabricated quotations attributed to Kansas and federal decisions, including a quote ascribed to Cory v. Troth, 170 Kan. 50 (1950), that does not appear in the opinion. Other invented quotations were drawn from Mason v. Gerin Corp., Fanning v. Sitton Motor Lines, Cochrane v. Schneider National, and Lemmons v. Board of County Commissioners, alongside an incorrect reporter citation for Pape v. Kansas Power & Light Co. Chief Judge John W. Broomes granted the motion to dismiss for improper claim splitting and separately ordered Steele to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(c).
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
Order to show cause issued against attorney Jonathan Steele, requiring a written response by January 20, 2026, explaining the false citations and quotations and addressing potential Rule 11(c) sanctions. Steele was also ordered to serve the order on his client and file proof of service. The underlying motion to dismiss was granted on claim-splitting grounds.
Why does McPhaul v. College Hills OPCO, LLC matter for law firms using AI?
The McPhaul show-cause order illustrates how fabricated authority can surface in routine motion practice far from the high-profile AI sanctions cases. Defense counsel flagged that plaintiff’s counsel had used AI in other jurisdictions, and the court catalogued at least five non-existent quotations and one mis-cited reporter, declining to rule on AI use but treating the inaccuracies as independently sanctionable under Rule 11. For firms managing junior associates or contract drafters, the case underscores that citation verification is a partner-level responsibility regardless of whether AI was the proximate cause.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.