Menk v. The Mitre Corporation

What did the court warn about?

In a December 19, 2025 order (ECF No. 131), Judge Julie R. Rubin declined to issue a Rule 11 show-cause order. After reviewing the Fourth Circuit's instruction that a court "is obliged to use extra care" before issuing a sua sponte show-cause order, the court wrote that "[i]n this discrete instance, the court will not issue a Rule 11 show cause order as to Mr. Collins's citation to a hallucinated case." It observed that Collins "has been transparent with the court and is appropriately contrite," found him credible, and was "satisfied that display of this error on the public docket serves as ample deterrent against future conduct of this nature." The court then warned that "should Plaintiffs' counsel engage in similar conduct in the future (i.e., citation to hallucinated authorities or the like), the court will issue an order to show cause why he should not face sanctions under Rule 11 and/or attorney misconduct referral." No sanction, fee award, or referral was imposed. Three days later, on December 22, 2025, the court granted Mitre's motion to sever (ECF No. 133), the motion the defective opposition had opposed.

Why does Menk v. The Mitre Corporation matter for law firms using AI?

Menk shows a court resolving a hallucinated citation through a short, staged inquiry rather than a sanctions proceeding. Checking the plaintiffs’ opposition to Mitre’s motion to sever, Judge Rubin could not find “Fleming v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, 2020 WL 2849891 (D. Md. June 2, 2020),” cited for how Fourth Circuit courts construe joinder under Rule 20. The Westlaw number was real but belonged to an unrelated Southern District of California decision. The same day, a paperless order told the plaintiffs to file a copy of the case; counsel instead reported that he could not locate it and asked for time to investigate, and two days later he filed an explanation.

As the order recounts that explanation, Francis J. Collins had used ChatGPT, “a generative artificial intelligence (‘AI’) chatbot,” for preliminary research, and it supplied the citation along with other material that he passed to another attorney, who drafted the opposition under a co-counsel agreement. Collins reviewed the brief and made changes, but did not cite-check it before signing and filing it. He took responsibility, apologized, and said he would not use ChatGPT for legal issues again. The court quoted a Maryland appellate decision, Mezu v. Mezu (itself quoting a California decision), for the point that fake or nonexistent citations “typically are the result of AI ‘hallucinations’”, and added in a footnote that it made “no commentary as to use of AI in the practice of law generally except to state that if one does use it, thorough verification of cited authorities is essential.”

The court then applied the Fourth Circuit’s caution about sua sponte Rule 11 show-cause orders and declined to issue one “[i]n this discrete instance,” relying on counsel’s transparency, contrition and credibility and on the deterrent effect of the public docket. The warning that follows is specific: a repeat would bring an order to show cause why counsel should not face Rule 11 sanctions or an attorney misconduct referral. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that the signing attorney’s review of a co-counsel draft did not include a citation check, and that this court relied on counsel’s candid explanation, together with the deterrent effect of the public docket, in declining to proceed further.