Moore v. MC Architects Inc.
U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii · D. Haw. · Hawaii bar guidance
Conduct
Counsel signed oppositions that, he said, his client had taken the lead in preparing with AI tools, without verifying the citations and assertions of fact and law in them.
Consequence
$1,000 personal Rule 11 sanction, agreed to by counsel at the hearing without a formal order to show cause.
Lesson
Here the lawyer who signed a client-drafted brief bore the sanction, and after candid admissions he agreed to a $1,000 penalty without an OSC.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Moore v. MC Architects Inc., Civ. No. 24-00367 JMS-KJM, Sanctions Order (D. Haw. Apr. 9, 2026) (Seabright, J.), ECF No. 78
- Decided
- April 9, 2026
Summary
William Mark Moore sued MC Architects Inc. and one of its employees after his effort to open a brewery in Honolulu failed. Defendants filed three dispositive motions, and Moore's counsel, Frederick Arensmeyer, filed oppositions. On April 3, 2026, Judge J. Michael Seabright issued an order identifying seven record- and case-citation issues in the oppositions and directing counsel to be prepared to explain them, and in particular whether they came from AI tools, at the April 8 motions hearing; the court noted the problems were not limited to those seven. At the hearing, Arensmeyer explained that Moore himself had taken a lead role in preparing the oppositions and had used AI tools in doing so. He admitted that he had not personally verified the citations and assertions of fact and law in the oppositions, which he signed, and acknowledged that he had thereby violated Rule 11 and the District of Hawaii's General Order 23-1 on the use of unverified sources. The court described his explanation as candid and noted that he accepted full responsibility.
- AI tool:
- Unnamed AI tools used by the client (per the sanctions order, counsel explained that the plaintiff used AI tools in preparing the oppositions; no tool is identified)
- Sanction amount:
- $1,000 against Attorney Frederick Arensmeyer personally, payable to the Clerk within seven days
What sanction did the court impose?
The court proposed issuing an order to show cause and a possible $1,000 monetary sanction under Rule 11(c)(1) and (c)(4). Arensmeyer agreed to the $1,000 sanction without the need for an order to show cause. In an April 9, 2026 Sanctions Order, the court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction against him personally, payable to the Clerk of Court within seven days. The order quotes General Order 23-1, which requires any filing generated by an unverified source to be accompanied by a declaration disclosing that use and verifying that counsel has confirmed the material is not fictitious. On May 5, 2026, the court decided the underlying motions, dismissing Moore's civil RICO claim without leave to amend and granting summary judgment on his misrepresentation and breach-of-contract claims. That order recounts the sanction in a footnote and adds that, beyond the identified citation issues, Moore's oppositions "often stray beyond the scope of the claims alleged," present "digressive arguments in convoluted terms," and "fail to provide citations to support assertions of fact and/or law."
Why does Moore v. MC Architects Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Moore shows a short path from citation problems to a sanction when counsel does not contest them. Judge Seabright identified seven issues in advance, asked counsel to be ready to say whether AI tools were involved, and at the hearing heard that the client had taken the lead in drafting with AI and that counsel had not checked the result. The court characterized that account as “a candid explanation,” noted that counsel “accepted full responsibility,” and, after proposing an order to show cause and a possible $1,000 sanction, accepted counsel’s agreement to the sanction without further proceedings.
Counsel acknowledged two violations. Rule 11 applies because counsel signed the oppositions, certifying their legal and factual contentions. The District of Hawaii’s General Order 23-1 separately requires a declaration whenever a filing is generated by an unverified source, confirming that counsel has checked that the material is not fictitious. The court made no separate finding under the General Order; the sanction rests on Rule 11(c)(1) and (c)(4).
The merits order that followed resolved the case against Moore on grounds unrelated to the citations. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this case, the drafting role of a client did not shift responsibility away from the attorney whose signature was on the filings, and counsel also acknowledged violating the court’s local AI order.
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 every citation in a client-drafted filing before signing it. Here counsel explained that the client used AI tools, and the court sanctioned the attorney who signed the oppositions.
- Document compliance with local AI rules. Counsel acknowledged that he had violated the District of Hawaii's General Order 23-1, which requires a disclosure and verification declaration for filings generated by unverified sources.
- Review a court's pre-hearing citation order promptly. The court here listed seven specific issues in advance and asked whether they came from AI tools.