Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division · S.D. Ind. · Indiana bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- Virgil v. Experian Info. Sols. Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD, 2026 WL 401066 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 12, 2026)
- Decided
- February 12, 2026
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel James L. Policchio filed five briefs containing citations to nonexistent cases, including Myers v. Passport Health, 2013 WL 5819270 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 29, 2013) and Schuh v. American Express Bank, FSB, 2019 WL 132741 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2019). After defendants RentGrow and Yardi Systems flagged the fabrications, Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore issued a Rule 11(c)(3) show cause order. Policchio attributed the errors to cut-and-paste from a case management program rather than AI use, having canceled his Lexis subscription for cost reasons; the magistrate held the distinction irrelevant because the underlying failure was not verifying citations before filing.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
- Sanction amount:
- $10,000
What sanction did the court impose?
Magistrate Judge Dinsmore recommended a $10,000 Rule 11 sanction against Policchio personally and referred the matter to Chief Judge James R. Sweeney II under Local Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 2(a) for consideration of further discipline, which permits referral to the Indiana Attorney Disciplinary Commission. No sanctions were recommended against co-counsel Kyle Schumacher, whose signature Policchio had affixed without authorization.
Why does Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al. matter for law firms using AI?
Virgil is notable for two reasons that managing partners should track. First, the magistrate explicitly rejected the AI-versus-not distinction: whether fabricated citations come from ChatGPT or from copy-pasting old work product, the Rule 11 obligation to verify before filing is identical. Second, Magistrate Judge Dinsmore framed the $10,000 figure as an upward escalation, noting that prior modest sanctions in his own court ($6,000 in HoosierVac, $7,500 recommended in Davis) had failed to deter, and that “no lesser sanction will serve the necessary deterrent purpose.” Firms relying on assumed-good prior research, with cost-driven cancellation of citator tools, face the same exposure as firms using AI without verification workflows.
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.