Kizzie Sims v. Board of County Commissioners for Oklahoma County
U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma · W.D. Okla. · Oklahoma bar guidance
Conduct
Here counsel acknowledged using an AI drafting tool for a motion; the defense said it contained false citations, and counsel said he verified them and one misstatement was his own error.
Consequence
No sanction. The court took counsel "at his word" and found the citations not so dissimilar as to be sanctionable.
Lesson
Here counsel's exhibit purporting to verify his independent research, and his explanation of the one error, preceded the court's decision to take him at his word.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Sims v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Okla. Cnty., No. CIV-23-780-R, Order (W.D. Okla. Feb. 3, 2026) (Russell, J.), ECF No. 178
- Decided
- February 3, 2026
Summary
Kizzie Sims, as special administrator of the estate of Gregory Neil Davis, sued over Davis's death as a pretrial detainee at the Oklahoma County Detention Center. Ruling on three Rule 702 motions, Judge David L. Russell granted Plaintiff's motion to exclude the jail defendants' expert, Dr. Paul Adler, and then addressed "one additional point." The jail defendants' response had contended that Plaintiff's counsel used AI to prepare the motion and violated Rule 11 by including false case citations. In reply, counsel acknowledged using an AI drafting tool, said he maintained responsibility for the work and verified the citations, attached an exhibit "purporting to verify his independent legal research," and attributed one misstatement in the brief to his own human editing error. The court wrote that it "is profoundly troubled by the legal profession's growing reliance on AI to draft briefs, which often results in citations to incorrect or nonexistent cases," citing Moore v. City of Del City (10th Cir.) and Mattox v. Product Innovations Research (E.D. Okla.).
- AI tool:
- Unnamed AI drafting tool (per the order, plaintiff's counsel acknowledged using an AI drafting tool to assist in preparing his brief)
- Amount or terms:
- None
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
No sanction. The court stated that "at this point, the Court takes counsel at his word that he personally verified the cases prior to submitting the brief and that the lone misstatement was an oversight," and that it did not view the cited cases as "so dissimilar as to rise to the level of a misrepresentation or sanctionable conduct." The order issues no separate warning or directive to counsel. On the expert motions, Plaintiff's motion to exclude Dr. Adler was granted on Rule 702 grounds, Plaintiff's motion to exclude or limit Nurse Kathryn J. Wild's testimony was granted in part and denied in part, and the medical defendants' motion to exclude opinions of Nurse Lori Roscoe was granted in part and denied in part.
Why does Kizzie Sims v. Board of County Commissioners for Oklahoma County matter for law firms using AI?
Sims shows a court declining to find sanctionable conduct while still putting its concern on the record. The accusation came from the jail defendants, who argued in their response that Plaintiff’s counsel used AI to draft his motion to exclude Dr. Adler and violated Rule 11 through false citations. Counsel’s reply acknowledged the AI drafting tool, maintained that he had verified the citations, supplied an exhibit meant to show his independent research, and attributed one misstatement to a human editing error.
Judge Russell wrote that the court “is profoundly troubled by the legal profession’s growing reliance on AI to draft briefs, which often results in citations to incorrect or nonexistent cases,” quoting the Tenth Circuit’s unpublished decision in Moore v. City of Del City and the Eastern District of Oklahoma’s statement in Mattox that such tools “create a new professional hazard, synthetic authority presented as precedent.” He then took counsel at his word “at this point” and concluded, “contrary to the jail defendants’ implication,” that the cited cases were not so dissimilar as to amount to misrepresentation or sanctionable conduct.
The qualifier “at this point” is the court’s own. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the court took counsel “at his word” on his representation that he personally verified the cases, and did so only “at this point”.
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.
- Document independent verification of AI-assisted research. Here counsel filed an exhibit purporting to verify his legal research, and the court accepted his account "at this point."
- Review briefs for editing errors after AI-assisted drafting. Counsel attributed the lone misstatement to his own human editing error, and the court accepted it as "an oversight."
- Consider that opposing counsel may raise Rule 11 in a response brief. Here the jail defendants did so, and the court addressed the accusation in its ruling on the motion.
Sources
Primary sources
- The order does not name plaintiff's counsel or the AI drafting tool he used.