Tiffany K. v. Commissioner of Social Security
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division · E.D. Mich. · Michigan bar guidance
Conduct
The plaintiff's summary judgment motion cited what appears to be a non-existent case, Fleck v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., which the court said was likely caused by generative AI.
Consequence
Here the court admonished attorney Erin Rich at the hearing and warned counsel and her firm that future instances will not be tolerated; no sanction imposed.
Lesson
Here the warning ran to the firm as well as the attorney who appeared, though the order notes she did not submit the motion or reply with the citation.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Tiffany K. v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:25-cv-10319, Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or Remand (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2026) (Patti, M.J.), ECF No. 18
- Decided
- January 16, 2026
Summary
In a Social Security disability appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the plaintiff's summary judgment motion included what the court called "what appears to be a non-existent 'phantom' case citation to Fleck v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec." Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti, presiding by consent, granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and remanded the matter to the Commissioner. Attorney Erin Rich appeared for the plaintiff at the January 15, 2026 hearing. A footnote records that "Attorney Rich did not submit her client's motion or reply" but was admonished at the beginning of the hearing for three things relating to her firm's briefing: failing to identify issues on appeal as required by his Practice Guidelines, submitting a reply brief below the required 14-point font, and including the phantom Fleck citation, "likely caused by use of generative artificial intelligence (AI)." A later order in another case, James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security (E.D. Mich. July 13, 2026), cites this footnote in a parenthetical as "warning Rich about potential AI misuse in citing non-existent phantom cases."
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the order says the apparently non-existent Fleck v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. citation was "likely caused by use of generative artificial intelligence (AI)"; it makes no finding of AI use and names no tool)
What did the court warn about?
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment or remand, denied the Commissioner's motion, and remanded for action consistent with its decision. It upheld the ALJ's Listing 12.02(B) finding but held that the ALJ's "conclusory discussion" of Listing 12.02(C) must be cured on remand. It held that the residual functional capacity determination fell short of SSR 96-8p's and 20 CFR § 416.945's requirements, calling for fuller explanation of concentration and manipulative limitations, and that the ALJ must more fully explain the evaluation of the plaintiff's symptoms under 20 CFR § 416.929 and SSR 16-3p. On the briefing, the footnote states: "Counsel and her law firm are HEREBY WARNED that citations of this sort and unconfirmed use of AI have led to sanctions in this Court and elsewhere, and future instances of this will not be tolerated." It adds that briefs that do not comply with the Local Rules or the judge's practice guidelines "may be (and frequently are) stricken." The order imposes no sanction.
Why does Tiffany K. v. Commissioner of Social Security matter for law firms using AI?
Tiffany K. is a Social Security appeal the plaintiff won: Magistrate Judge Patti remanded because the ALJ’s discussion of Listing 12.02(C) was conclusory and the residual functional capacity assessment was insufficiently explained. The AI issue appears only in footnote 2. Attorney Erin Rich appeared for the plaintiff at the January 15, 2026 video hearing, and the footnote records that although “Attorney Rich did not submit her client’s motion or reply,” she was admonished at the start of the hearing for three things relating to her firm’s briefing, one of which was “what appears to be a non-existent ‘phantom’ case citation to Fleck v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,” which the court said was “likely caused by use of generative artificial intelligence (AI).” The order makes no finding beyond that hedged statement.
The warning is addressed to the firm as well as to the attorney: “Counsel and her law firm are HEREBY WARNED that citations of this sort and unconfirmed use of AI have led to sanctions in this Court and elsewhere, and future instances of this will not be tolerated.” The same footnote notes that briefs that do not comply with the Local Rules or the judge’s practice guidelines “may be (and frequently are) stricken.” No sanction was imposed.
The footnote had consequences later. In July 2026, in a different Social Security appeal in the same district, an order imposing Rule 11 sanctions on Rich cited Tiffany K., in a parenthetical describing her firm’s new citation-verification process, as “warning Rich about potential AI misuse in citing non-existent phantom cases”; see James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this sequence, a footnote warning in an order the client won was cited in a later order sanctioning the same attorney.
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 case citation before filing, including in routine appeals. Here one apparently non-existent citation in a Social Security summary judgment motion drew a written warning in an order that otherwise granted the client remand.
- Document who drafted, reviewed, and filed each brief. Here the court admonished the attorney who appeared at the hearing for her firm's briefing, while noting she did not submit the motion or reply.
- Review compliance with the assigned judge's practice guidelines and local formatting rules alongside citation checks. The same admonition covered a failure to identify the issues on appeal and a reply brief below the required 14-point font.
- Consider that a warning to counsel can resurface later. A July 2026 order imposing Rule 11 sanctions on the same attorney cited this footnote as having warned her about potential AI misuse.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the order says only that the phantom Fleck citation was 'likely caused by use of generative artificial intelligence (AI)'; it makes no finding that AI was used and records no admission of AI use. The tracker's AI coding is an inference from that hedged statement.
- The admonition itself was given orally at the January 15, 2026 hearing, and the court's on-the-record ruling is incorporated by reference; the hearing transcript was not read. This entry relies only on the written order.