State ex rel. Schnell v. Richardson
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District · Mo. Ct. App. E.D. · Missouri bar guidance
Conduct
Relator's counsel cited two cases in a mandamus writ filing that did not exist at the cited locations; she admitted using generative AI and not checking.
Consequence
Writ denied; counsel ordered to pay $1,750, a reasonable attorney's fee as the court determined it, under Rule 55.03(c) to the parties required to respond.
Lesson
The court sanctioned citing nonexistent cases without a reasonable prefiling inquiry, not the AI use, and set the amount at what it found reasonable for the opponents' fees in responding.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- State ex rel. Schnell v. Richardson, No. ED114731 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. Sept. 8, 2026) (Torbitzky, P.J.)
- Decided
- September 8, 2026
Summary
Steven Schnell petitioned the Eastern District for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to transfer venue of a petition seeking termination of his parental rights and adoption of his child by a stepparent. His counsel, Jenna Rohr Conley, argued that the case belonged in St. Charles County, where other litigation about the child was pending, on the theory that all cases involving one family must be decided by the same judge. In the suggestions in support, she cited two cases for that proposition. Relying on her representation of the law, the court ordered suggestions in opposition. Reviewing the filings together, it found that the citations did not correspond to the cases named, that cases with those names existed at other citations but did not stand for the proposition, and that its own research found no authority for such a broad rule (noting that certain statutory authority suggests it in particular circumstances not at issue). The court recounts that Conley's response to its show-cause order "stated that she used generative artificial intelligence to research legal authorities supporting her position but failed to verify the accuracy of the citations before submitting them to the Court," and that she "was unable to identify a case that supported her statements of the law." The court called the response "earnest and apologetic."
- AI tool:
- Generative AI, tool not named (the court recounts that counsel's show-cause response 'stated that she used generative artificial intelligence to research legal authorities')
- Sanction amount:
- $1,750 under Rule 55.03(c), payable by relator's counsel Jenna Rohr Conley to the petitioners in the underlying action for attorney's fees incurred in opposing the writ petition
What sanction did the court impose?
The court denied the writ petition as without merit and sanctioned Conley under Rule 55.03, finding two violations: the cited cases, "by her own admission," did not exist, so the claim was not warranted by existing law; and she failed to conduct an objectively reasonable prefiling inquiry, because generative AI's tendency to fabricate case law and citations is "well documented." It ordered her to pay $1,750 to the petitioners in the underlying action, K.N.O. and J.W.O., for reasonable attorney's fees incurred in preparing suggestions in opposition, which the court had ordered in reliance on her representation of the law. The court said it was not sanctioning her "because she used generative AI," listed Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct that careless AI use can implicate, recommended Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11 to all Missouri attorneys, and stated in a footnote that it made no decision on whether any rule was violated, leaving that to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Why does State ex rel. Schnell v. Richardson matter for law firms using AI?
State ex rel. Schnell v. Richardson is a short writ order with a clear theory of the violation. The Eastern District found that Conley breached Rule 55.03 “in at least two ways”: the authority she relied on did not exist, so her legal contention was not “warranted by existing law,” and she did not conduct an objectively reasonable prefiling inquiry. On the second point the court treated generative AI’s failure mode as settled: “At this point in time, generative AI’s tendency to fabricate caselaw and citations is well documented,” and “it is objectively unreasonable for any attorney or self-represented party to fail to verify AI’s accuracy. For this reason alone, sanctions are appropriate.”
The court was explicit that the tool was not the problem. “To be clear, this Court is not sanctioning Conley because she used generative AI. The use of AI is only incidental to the sanction.” It compared the filing to an attorney signing “work prepared by someone else without verifying the accuracy of claims therein,” and devoted a paragraph to the benefits of AI in discovery review, summarization, research, and drafting before turning to the risks. It then listed the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct that careless AI use can implicate (Rules 4-1.1, 4-3.1, 4-3.3, 4-5.4, and 4-8.4) while disclaiming, in a footnote, any decision on whether Conley violated them.
The measure of the sanction is practical. Because the court had ordered the underlying petitioners to file suggestions in opposition “on Conley’s representation of the law,” it set the sanction at $1,750, the amount it found reasonable for their attorney’s fees in doing so. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that in writ practice, where a court’s decision to call for a response can turn on the petition’s cited authority, the cost of a nonexistent citation can be imposed on counsel personally, measured here by a reasonable fee for the opponents’ response.
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 citation in writ filings before submission. The court ordered opposition briefing on the strength of counsel's citations, and set the sanction at a reasonable fee for that briefing.
- Train attorneys that, in this court's view, generative AI's tendency to fabricate case law is now well documented, so failing to verify AI-sourced research is objectively unreasonable under Rule 55.03.
- Review the firm's AI practices against Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11, which the court encouraged all Missouri attorneys to read.
- Document that a citation check covers whether the case at the cited reporter location matches the name and supports the proposition. Here cases with the cited names existed, but not at the citations given and not for the rule claimed.