Kizzie Sims & Estate of Gregory Neil Davis v. Board of County Commissioners
U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma · W.D. Okla. · Oklahoma bar guidance
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Sims v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Okla. Cnty., No. CIV-23-780-R (W.D. Okla. Feb. 3, 2026) (Russell, J.)
- Decided
- February 3, 2026
Summary
In an Order resolving three Daubert motions in a Section 1983 jail-death case, Judge David L. Russell granted Plaintiff's motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert Dr. Paul Adler. The jail defendants' response had contended that Plaintiff's counsel used AI to prepare his motion and violated Rule 11 by including false case citations. In reply, Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged using an AI drafting tool but maintained he personally verified the citations and that one misstatement was a human editing error. The Court took counsel at his word and declined to find sanctionable conduct, but used the occasion to express that it is "profoundly troubled by the legal profession's growing reliance on AI to draft briefs," citing Tenth Circuit and E.D. Okla. authority warning of "synthetic authority presented as precedent."
- AI tool:
- Unidentified AI drafting tool
- Sanction amount:
- None
What sanction did the court impose?
No Rule 11 sanction. Court accepted counsel's representation that he verified the citations and that the lone misstatement was an oversight, but issued an on-record warning about AI-drafted briefing. Plaintiff's underlying motion to exclude Dr. Adler's testimony was granted on Rule 702 grounds unrelated to AI.
Why does Kizzie Sims & Estate of Gregory Neil Davis v. Board of County Commissioners matter for law firms using AI?
Sims is a near-miss, not a sanction: the court explicitly declined to find Rule 11 violations, taking counsel at his word that he verified the cases and that the lone misstatement was a human editing error. For a managing partner, the value of the order is the dicta. Judge Russell put on the record that he is “profoundly troubled” by AI-drafted briefs and stitched together Tenth Circuit and E.D. Okla. authority (Moore v. City of Del City; Mattox v. Prod. Innovations Rsch.) framing AI hallucinations as a “new professional hazard, synthetic authority presented as precedent.” The takeaway for firms practicing in the Tenth Circuit: even where the court accepts your verification representation, expect your AI drafting practices to be discussed by name in a published order, and expect opposing counsel to raise Rule 11 the moment a citation looks off. Documenting an internal verification workflow before filing is the cheapest insurance against the next judge being less charitable than Judge Russell.
Sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.