Patel v. Patel

What did the court warn about?

In a three-page Memorandum Opinion and Order entered July 7, 2026 (DN 68), the court found the attorneys' "explanations satisfactory and their apologies genuine." It reasoned that because their "use of improper citations and quotations was not intentional and, to the Court's knowledge, neither attorney has a history of misconduct, a warning is a sufficient deterrent in this case," citing the Kentucky Bar Association's lawyer directory in a footnote for the absence of a disciplinary history. Thomas and Jocelyn were "admonished to ensure that these errors are not repeated." The court ordered that the Show Cause Order "has been satisfied" and declined to impose sanctions. Before reaching that result, the order reviewed the Rule 11 factors from the Advisory Committee Notes and noted that other courts have imposed sanctions where attorneys continue to rely on nonexistent citations after notice or have a history of similar misconduct. The same day, in a separate memorandum opinion (DN 67), the court granted in part and denied in part the respondents' motions to dismiss.

Why does Patel v. Patel matter for law firms using AI?

The court’s handling of this matter followed a two-step pattern: a written show-cause order that identified the problem items by page, then a short disposition once counsel responded. The show-cause order is specific about what it wanted to know. Each attorney had to address, under oath, how the response “came to cite case(s) that do not exist, cite quotations that do not exist, and cases that do not stand for the propositions cited,” and what role each “individually played in drafting or reviewing the response before it was filed.” It also cited Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion E-457 for the duty to review AI-assisted submissions for accuracy.

The disposition turned on the factors the court named: it found the explanations satisfactory and the apologies genuine, found the use of improper citations and quotations “not intentional,” and found no history of misconduct “to the Court’s knowledge.” On that record the court concluded that “a warning is a sufficient deterrent in this case.” The order does not describe what the declarations said, so it does not establish whether or how AI was used; the AI attribution rests on the court’s own “appear to be” and “apparently” language in the show-cause order.

The order also collects the court’s view of the surrounding case law, including the Sixth Circuit’s statement in United States v. Farris that attorneys who use AI tools must verify the citations and propositions they submit, and it notes that other courts have imposed sanctions where attorneys persisted after notice or had a history of similar conduct. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider how a sworn, individual account of the drafting and review process figured in this court’s decision to warn rather than sanction.