Robinson v. Davidson County
North Carolina Court of Appeals · N.C. Ct. App. · North Carolina bar guidance
Conduct
Here the appellant's brief attributed quotations to two of the court's opinions that the panel could not find in those opinions or any other case.
Consequence
No sanction. The court flagged the question of AI generation, reminded counsel that rule violations are sanctionable, and affirmed on standing.
Lesson
Here the court declined even to repeat quoted language it could not locate, calling it hallucinatory language that others might inadvertently reuse.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Robinson v. Davidson Cnty., No. COA 25-971 (N.C. Ct. App. May 6, 2026) (unpublished) (per curiam)
- Decided
- May 6, 2026
Summary
Hollye R. Robinson appealed a Davidson County Superior Court order dismissing, for lack of standing, her petition for writ of certiorari challenging the county board of adjustment's grant of a variance for a neighbor's carport. The opinion lists Smith Law Group, PLLC, by Tristan McGuire, Matthew L. Spencer, and Steven D. Smith, as counsel for the petitioner-appellant. In a section titled "Petitioner's Brief," the court wrote: "We note many concerns with Petitioner's brief that raise the question of whether this brief was generated, at least in part, by artificial intelligence." It said that sections C-1 and C-2 of the brief, concerning the motion to dismiss, "contain "quotes" from two separate cases, but the language from those "quotations" does not appear in either of this Court's opinions to which the brief accredits them nor to any other case this panel could locate." The court declined to reproduce them "out of concern that the hallucinatory language will be inadvertently used by others." It added that the brief contained multiple statements supported by general citations as if in the author's own words, when "all the language belongs to our Supreme Court and should be credited as such using quotation marks."
- AI tool:
- Suspected (the court said its concerns with the brief "raise the question of whether this brief was generated, at least in part, by artificial intelligence"; no finding or admission of AI use, no tool named)
- Amount or terms:
- None; the court reminded appellate counsel that "[f]ailure to follow the rules is sanctionable"
What did the court warn about?
In an unpublished per curiam opinion (panel of Judges Stroud, Arrowood, and Wood), the court affirmed the dismissal. It held that respondents gave the statutory notice that standing would be raised under N.C. Gen. Stat. 160D-1402(f), and that petitioner offered no evidence of special damages and so lacked standing under 160D-1402(c). On the brief, the court imposed no sanction. It wrote: "We take this opportunity to remind appellate counsel of the obligation to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Rules of this Court. While we recognize that artificial intelligence can be an extremely helpful tool in assisting with legal research and drafting legal memorandums, counsel is responsible for the ultimate content of their work. Failure to follow the rules is sanctionable." The brief's problems played no stated part in the standing holding.
Why does Robinson v. Davidson County matter for law firms using AI?
Robinson v. Davidson County is a zoning-standing appeal in which the brief drew a separate section of the opinion. The panel affirmed on standing, before reaching the merits: the neighbor challenging a carport variance received timely notice that standing would be contested and offered nothing to show special damages beyond her own assertion. The discussion of the brief comes after that holding and does not affect it.
The court’s language about artificial intelligence is framed as a question, not a finding. It said its concerns “raise the question of whether this brief was generated, at least in part, by artificial intelligence,” and identified two kinds of problem. The first is quotations attributed to two of the court’s own opinions that the panel could not find there or in any other case. The court chose not to repeat them “out of concern that the hallucinatory language will be inadvertently used by others.” The second is the reverse problem: language that, the court said, “belongs to our Supreme Court,” presented, with only a general citation, as the brief writer’s own.
The court closed with a reminder rather than a sanction, observing that AI “can be an extremely helpful tool” but that “counsel is responsible for the ultimate content of their work” and that “[f]ailure to follow the rules is sanctionable.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that in this unpublished opinion the court treated both quotations it could not locate and unattributed borrowing as problems with the same brief.
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 quotation against the cited opinion's text. Here the court could not find the quoted language in the two opinions the brief credited or in any other case.
- Review borrowed language for quotation marks. The court also faulted statements supported only by general citations whose language, it said, 'belongs to our Supreme Court.'
- Document who is responsible for a brief's final content. The court stated that AI can be a helpful tool but that 'counsel is responsible for the ultimate content of their work.'
Sources
Primary sources
- AI use is not established. The court said its concerns 'raise the question of whether' the brief was generated at least in part by artificial intelligence; it made no finding, and the opinion records no admission or tool.
- The opinion does not say which of the three listed attorneys drafted or signed the brief.