William Parker v. Patrick "Pat" Labat, et al.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division · N.D. Ga. · Georgia bar guidance
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Parker v. Labat, No. 1:25-cv-03809-JPB-CMS, Order Adopting Final Report and Recommendation (N.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2026) (Boulee, J.), ECF No. 31; Final Report and Recommendation (N.D. Ga. Jan. 21, 2026) (Salinas, M.J.), ECF No. 29
- Decided
- February 10, 2026
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel E. Earle Burke filed a response brief opposing a motion to dismiss that, as Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas found, presented three quotations that do not appear in the cases they were attributed to (Cutliffe v. Cochran, Underwood v. Hawkins, and Akers v. Caperton), cited "Hall v. Timmons, 987 F.3d 1189, 1198 (11th Cir. 2021)," which "does not appear to exist in the Eleventh Circuit or in any other federal court," and misstated the law at least three times, including a claim about Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, which "involved neither § 1983 nor the Constitution." The court's January 5 show-cause order required a sworn statement explaining the errors and stating "whether Attorney Burke used AI to prepare Parker's response brief." Burke "did not respond to the Order in any way."
- AI tool:
- Not determined (the show-cause order required counsel to state whether he used AI to prepare the brief; he did not respond)
- Sanction amount:
- Non-monetary Rule 11(b) sanction: a six-hour CLE course on employment law or legal research and writing within six months, with proof of attendance; and, for one year, a sworn statement with every document filed in the court verifying that counsel personally checked all citations and quotations
What sanction did the court impose?
In a Final Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29), the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the amended complaint and recommended that Burke be sanctioned under Rule 11(b), both for the false quotations, non-existent case and misstatements and for asserting frivolous claims, through one or more of: (1) a six-hour CLE course on employment law or legal research and writing within six months, with proof of attendance; (2) a $1,500 fine; or (3) for three years, a sworn statement with every filing in the court verifying that he personally checked all citations and quotations. On February 10, 2026, the district court (Boulee, J., per the docket) adopted the unopposed recommendation on clear-error review, granted the motion to dismiss, and ordered that "attorney E. Earle Burke is SANCTIONED under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)" (ECF No. 31). It imposed two recommended measures: Burke must attend a six-hour CLE course on employment law or legal research and writing within six months and submit proof of attendance, and "[f]or the next year" submit with every document he files in the court a sworn statement "verifying that he has personally checked all citations and quotations in the filing to ensure accuracy." The order does not impose the recommended $1,500 fine, and it shortens the sworn-statement period from the recommended three years to one.
Why does William Parker v. Patrick "Pat" Labat, et al. matter for law firms using AI?
Parker is notable for two reasons. First, the magistrate judge expressly framed Rule 11 liability as agnostic to the cause of fabrication: “whether resulting from the use of artificial intelligence (‘AI’) or old-fashioned attorney error or neglect,” submission of fake or misrepresented citations is sanctionable. On this reasoning, disclaiming AI use would not by itself avoid Rule 11 exposure. Second, the district judge imposed a sworn-statement requirement: for one year, counsel must file with every document he files in that court a sworn statement that he personally checked all citations and quotations (the magistrate judge had recommended three years). That is a meaningful operational burden, and its wording is a possible reference point for firms considering what an internal AI-output verification policy might look like in practice. The district judge adopted the recommendation on February 10, 2026 and imposed the CLE and one-year sworn-statement measures, not the fine.
Sources
Primary sources
- The district judge's name does not appear in the extracted text of ECF No. 31 (signature block); it is taken from the docket, which records the order as signed by Judge J. P. Boulee. Burke's March 10, 2026 notice of filing the adoption order, with an affidavit (ECF No. 33), was not read, so compliance is not reported.
- The report twice dates the show-cause order "January 5, 2025" (pages 2 and 28); the docket shows the order to show cause (ECF No. 28) signed and entered January 5, 2026, and the entry uses that year.