Mi Hui Chon Salyer v. Clinton Salyer

What did the court warn about?

In an opinion and order by Judge Cetrulo, with Judges Caldwell and A. Jones concurring, the court affirmed the circuit court, holding that the appellant's 13-year delay was unreasonable. On the briefs, it imposed no sanction. It reminded "both counsel that 'citations of authority pertinent to each issue of law' are requirements, not mere suggestions," citing Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(A)(4). The footnote adds that the court had "previously warned this counsel that failure to follow briefing requirements could result in sanctions in future appeals," citing George v. George (Ky. App. 2021), and repeats the court's earlier statement that it has "grown weary" of attorneys failing to follow the appellate rules. It then states: "Nonetheless, we have elected to proceed with this decision without further delay in light of the many failures and delay already evident in this case." The same footnote denies the appellee's motion to amend the brief, to which the appellant had objected; the opinion does not describe that denial as a sanction. The opinion is designated not to be published.

Why does Mi Hui Chon Salyer v. Clinton Salyer matter for law firms using AI?

Salyer is a family-law appeal in which the Kentucky Court of Appeals used the opening of its analysis to address the briefing before turning to the merits. The court described “the profound inadequacy of both briefs on appeal.” It faulted the appellant’s counsel for citing a single property case and failing to support the legal arguments, and it wrote that the appellee’s counsel “appeared to cite two non-existent cases.” It then reminded both counsel that Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(A)(4) makes “citations of authority pertinent to each issue of law” a requirement.

The AI discussion is confined to footnote 4. There the court disclosed that it had already issued a show-cause order “suspecting that artificial intelligence was used to obtain case citations that do not exist,” and that the response “did not fully alleviate our serious concerns.” The court kept its language hedged: the citations “appeared” nonexistent, and AI use was a suspicion, not a finding. The opinion does not identify the two cases or describe the response. The footnote also recalls that the court had warned the same counsel in 2021, in George v. George, that briefing failures “could result in sanctions in future appeals,” and repeats its earlier remark in Clark v. Workman that it has “grown weary” of attorneys who do not follow the appellate rules.

The opinion imposes no sanction. The court said it had “elected to proceed with this decision without further delay in light of the many failures and delay already evident in this case.” It denied the appellee’s motion to amend its brief, over the appellant’s objection, and affirmed the circuit court, holding the 13-year delay unreasonable. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that this court recorded its remaining concerns, and a prior warning to the same attorney, in the opinion itself, even though the opinion is unpublished and no sanction followed.