Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · E.D. La. · Louisiana bar guidance
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville, No. 2:23-cv-05824, ECF No. 101 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2026) (Long, J.) (dismissal); ECF No. 117 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 2026) (Long, J.) (Rule 11 sanctions)
- Decided
- March 5, 2026
Summary
Regulatory-takings dispute over the Mandeville City Council's denial of the proposed Sucette Harbor Project on lakefront land owned by LSU Health Foundation New Orleans, with Woodward Harbor LLC as the developer. In opposition (filed June 3, 2025; ECF No. 97) to the City's second Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the remaining equal protection claim, plaintiffs' counsel filed a brief drafted by John R. Walker (Jones Fussell LLP) and electronically signed by Walker and Michael R. C. Riess (Riess LeMieux LLC), with Johanna Elizabeth Lambert (Riess LeMieux LLC) and Thomas H. Huval (Jones Fussell LLP) also listed in the signature blocks. The brief contained citations to at least eleven cases that either did not exist or were incorrectly summarized, relied on, or quoted from. Identified fabrications included 'Wood v. City of Utica, 890 F.3d 273, 285 (2d Cir. 2018)' and 'Qutb v. Ramsey, 285 F. App'x 251, 258 (5th Cir. 2008)' (a case by that name exists at 285 F. Supp. 33, a District of Columbia district court case). The City flagged the fabrications in its reply brief; plaintiffs did not withdraw the opposition, file a sur-reply, or correct the errors. In a sworn declaration (Feb. 12, 2026), Walker stated that he was responsible for preparing the opposition, that he used 'WESTLAW Precision AI and ChatGPT' to assist him, and that he 'was new to using these tools and did not appreciate the limitations of and potential pitfalls in using such tools, including the risk that ChatGPT would "hallucinate"'. He stated that on June 6, 2025, the day the City filed its reply, he underwent lumbar fusion surgery and 'failed to note defendant counsel's comments regarding the errors', that it was his forty-third year of practice with no prior claim of ethical misconduct or sanction, and that he had since read ABA Formal Opinion 512 and would independently verify every authority going forward.
- AI tool:
- Westlaw Precision AI and ChatGPT (per Walker's sworn declaration of February 12, 2026, ECF No. 104-1)
- Sanction amount:
- $1,000 personal sanction against attorney John R. Walker, payable to the Clerk of Court
What sanction did the court impose?
Two orders, by Judge Brandon S. Long. (1) DISMISSAL ORDER (Feb. 5, 2026, ECF No. 101): granted the City's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed Plaintiffs' Section 1983 and equal protection claims and their requests for declaratory relief WITH PREJUDICE; the court stated it 'has chosen to ignore most of Plaintiffs' arguments' and said it would issue a separate show cause order (ECF No. 103). (2) SANCTIONS ORDER (Mar. 5, 2026, ECF No. 117), following a Feb. 24, 2026 show-cause hearing: (a) Walker sanctioned personally $1,000, payable to the Clerk by March 10, 2026; (b) Walker ordered to attend 2 hours of CLE on Generative AI by December 31, 2026 and file proof; (c) the court recognized that Walker had agreed to repay his clients the fees he earned drafting the opposition brief; (d) the court found that 'judicial admonition is a sufficient sanction' for the three other attorneys whose names appeared on the brief (Riess, Lambert, and Huval) and declined to sanction them, accepting their representations that they were not meaningfully involved in preparing it, were unaware of the AI use, and relied on Walker's citations; (e) the court commended the Plaintiffs' law firms for drafting AI procedures, mandating responsible practices by cocounsel, and training employees. The City's later Section 1988 fee motions (ECF Nos. 107, 108) were denied on June 24, 2026 without prejudice to renewal after the Fifth Circuit's mandate issues (ECF No. 142).
Why does Woodward Harbor LLC v. City of Mandeville matter for law firms using AI?
The Woodward Harbor matter follows a two-stage sequence seen in other federal AI-citation cases: (1) a merits order that sets aside the affected arguments, decides the underlying motion, and dismisses the claim; followed by (2) a separate Rule 11 show-cause proceeding and a sanctions order against counsel personally. Judge Long’s two orders (Feb. 5 and Mar. 5, 2026) are notable for two points.
First, both orders stress counsel’s failure to act on the City’s reply brief, which had expressly flagged the fabricated citations. The order observes that “Plaintiffs took no action in response to the reply brief: they did not withdraw their opposition, file a surreply, or otherwise contend with Defendant’s claim that they had cited fake authorities.”
Second, the sanctions order addresses how Rule 11 applies to attorneys from two firms who cosign an AI-drafted brief. The court accepted Walker’s sworn admission that he alone drafted the brief and that the other three attorneys (Riess, Lambert, Huval) were unaware of the AI use, but explicitly cautioned that “when delegating brief-drafting responsibility to a cocounsel, the attorneys must still comply with Rule 11 when they act as cosigners.” Citing Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, the court underscored that signing creates “personal, nondelegable responsibility.” It declined to sanction the three cosigners under the “least severe sanction adequate” principle, but commended the firms for drafting AI procedures, mandating responsible practices by cocounsel, and training employees on the dangers of improper AI use.
Sources
Primary sources
- A legal-malpractice petition, LSU Health Foundation New Orleans v. Jones Fussell L.L.P., No. 2026-02562 (Civ. Dist. Ct. Orleans Par., reportedly filed Mar. 27, 2026), against Jones Fussell LLP, Riess LeMieux LLC, Riess, Lambert, and Walker over the hallucinated brief, was described in an earlier version of this entry. No court-hosted copy of the petition has been located; it is on the manual pull list.