United States v. Farris
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 6th Cir. · Kentucky bar guidance , Michigan bar guidance , Ohio bar guidance , Tennessee bar guidance
Verified October 1, 2026
- Citation
- United States v. Farris, No. 25-5623 (6th Cir. Apr. 3, 2026) (per curiam)
- Decided
- April 3, 2026
Summary
Steven N. Howe, court-appointed CJA counsel for defendant John C. Farris on appeal from a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, filed principal and reply briefs containing fabricated quotations and misrepresented holdings. "By his own admission, Howe used artificial intelligence to draft the briefs in this case and then filed them without properly verifying the cited legal authorities" (slip op. at 1). The principal brief's file name, "CoCounsel Skill Results," first drew the panel's attention (id. at 2). Howe stated that he directed an unnamed staff member to upload district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel to create a first draft of the principal brief, then worked in that file for six hours to supplement it, and repeated the process for the reply brief (id. at 3). The panel (Clay, Gibbons, and Hermandorfer, JJ., per curiam) found purported direct quotations that did not appear in the cited sources, including commentary attributed to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.1, and found the briefs misrepresented United States v. Washington, 715 F.3d 975 (6th Cir. 2013), and United States v. Anthony, 280 F.3d 694 (6th Cir. 2002).
- AI tool:
- Westlaw CoCounsel
What sanction did the court impose?
The panel concluded that "the following measures are appropriate" (slip op. at 6): (1) Howe shall not be compensated under the Criminal Justice Act for his time on the appeal; (2) the Clerk shall forward the opinion to the Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit to consider disciplinary proceedings under Sixth Circuit Local Rule 46; and (3) the opinion shall be served on the Chief Judge and the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and on the Disciplinary Clerk for the Kentucky Bar Association. By a separate order the same day, the court removed Howe from the representation and directed the appointment of replacement CJA counsel (id.). The opinion calls these "measures" and does not use the word "sanction." It was recommended for publication under Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b).
Why does United States v. Farris matter for law firms using AI?
Farris shows an appellate court responding to unverified AI drafting with the tools of appointed-counsel administration as well as a disciplinary referral. The panel denied CJA compensation for the whole appeal, sent the opinion to the Chief Judge to consider disciplinary proceedings and to the Kentucky Bar Association’s disciplinary clerk, and, by separate order, removed counsel (slip op. at 6). The briefs began as CoCounsel drafts that a staff member generated at counsel’s direction (id. at 2-3). The court wrote that attorneys “should not utilize technology without knowing the ways in which it can be misused or contribute to inaccuracies,” and that this “remains true even when new tools are sponsored by trusted legal technology providers” (id. at 4). For managing partners, the case shows that a legal research product does not replace checking each quotation against its source, and that handing a first draft to staff does not shift the duty to verify.
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.
- A reporter citation, 171 F.4th 920, appears in another court's opinion; it was not checked against the reporter and is not used here.