Tiffany K. v. Commissioner of Social Security
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · E.D. Mich. · Michigan bar guidance
Conduct
Counsel for Social Security claimant included phantom Fleck v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. citation, likely AI-generated, in disability briefing.
Consequence
Counsel and law firm warned that future AI-related citation failures will not be tolerated; merits remand granted on other grounds.
Lesson
First Patti AI warning to represented counsel rather than pro se litigant; counsel-side AI workflows under scrutiny in SSA appeals.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Tiffany K. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:25-cv-10319 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2026) (Patti, M.J.)
- Decided
- January 16, 2026
Summary
In a Social Security disability appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff's counsel submitted briefing that included a phantom citation to a non-existent case styled "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. In a footnote, Patti admonished counsel for three issues with 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 AI.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (specific tool not identified; phantom Fleck v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. citation likely AI-generated)
What sanction did the court impose?
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment or remand granted; the Commissioner's motion denied; matter remanded for action consistent with the decision. Counsel and her law firm 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." Briefs that fail to comply with Local Rules or judge's practice guidelines may be stricken in future filings. No monetary sanction imposed.
Why does Tiffany K. v. Commissioner of Social Security matter for law firms using AI?
Tiffany K. v. Commissioner of Social Security is the first AI-related warning in Patti’s chambers directed at represented counsel rather than a pro se litigant. The fact pattern is a routine SSA disability appeal: Plaintiff prevailed on the merits and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings on Listing 12.02 and residual functional capacity. The AI issue surfaces in a footnote where Patti admonishes counsel for three procedural and substantive briefing failures, including a phantom citation to “Fleck v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.” that Patti attributed to “use of generative artificial intelligence.”
For SSA-side practitioners in E.D. Mich., the operational implication is that Patti’s existing practice guidelines for Social Security cases now carry an AI-verification overlay. Firms running disability appeals at volume often rely on internal precedent libraries and templates that may not be re-verified per filing; Patti’s footnote is a signal that template-driven briefing will be scrutinized for fabricated citations along with the existing checks for issue identification, font compliance, and page limits. The warning was issued to “Counsel and her law firm” jointly, which establishes notice for the firm as a whole, not just the signing attorney; a second instance from any attorney at the firm in Patti’s chambers would face the Ali v. IT People $200-per-citation framework with the Tiffany K. warning serving as the prerequisite formal notice.
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.
- Social Security disability practice often relies on standardized briefing templates; verify every cited Sixth Circuit case against the official reporter before filing under Patti's practice guidelines.
- Patti's practice guidelines for SSA cases now require explicit issue-identification in opening briefs; verify the current version on the chambers page before drafting.
- A counsel-side warning establishes notice for the firm; a second instance from any attorney at that firm in any case in Patti's chambers risks the Ali $200/citation framework.