State National Insurance Company, Inc. v. Treadwell
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama · N.D. Ala. · Alabama bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- State Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Treadwell, No. 2:24-cv-01424-HDM (N.D. Ala. Mar. 26, 2026)
- Decided
- March 26, 2026
Summary
Attorney Edward Eugene May, II, representing defendants Damon and Catherine Treadwell, filed a response brief containing two fabricated quotations attributed to Nishimatsu Construction Co. v. Houston National Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975), and Whelan v. Abell, 953 F.2d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Neither quotation existed in the cited cases or anywhere else. Mr. May admitted he drafted the brief by uploading source materials into ChatGPT to produce an outline, then refining the draft through OpenCase, and conceded he failed to verify the quotations before filing. Judge Harold D. Mooty III found the conduct akin to contempt under Rule 11.
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT and OpenCase
What sanction did the court impose?
Public reprimand under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Mr. May was ordered to provide a copy of the sanctions order to opposing counsel and the presiding judge in every pending state or federal case in which he is counsel of record, and to his clients, by April 6, 2026, with certification to the court. The Clerk of Court was directed to submit the order for publication in the Federal Supplement. The court declined to impose a monetary fine, bar referral, disqualification, or suspension, but warned that each option was on the table for any future similar infraction.
Why does State National Insurance Company, Inc. v. Treadwell matter for law firms using AI?
State National v. Treadwell is one of the first published sanctions orders to name OpenCase, a legal-vertical generative AI tool, alongside ChatGPT as the source of fabricated authority. The order is notable for two reasons relevant to managing partners: first, the court accepted that running ChatGPT output through a second, legal-specific AI did not satisfy Rule 11’s reasonable inquiry obligation, foreclosing any “but I used a legal AI” defense; and second, Judge Mooty paired a non-monetary public reprimand with an affirmative duty to notify opposing counsel and presiding judges in every other pending matter, a remedy designed to follow the attorney across his entire active docket.
Sources
Primary 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.