Whiting v. City of Athens, Tenn.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 6th Cir. · Kentucky bar guidance , Michigan bar guidance , Ohio bar guidance , Tennessee bar guidance
Verified May 15, 2026
- Citation
- Whiting v. City of Athens, Tenn., No. 25-5425 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026)
- Decided
- March 13, 2026
Summary
Attorneys Van R. Irion and Russ Egli filed appellate briefs in three consolidated appeals containing over two dozen fake case citations and misrepresentations of the record. Writing for the panel, Judge John K. Bush (joined by Judges Jane B. Stranch and Eric E. Murphy) inquired whether generative AI had been used to draft the briefs and emphasized that no brief should contain any citations the filing attorney has not personally read and verified. The opinion did not name a specific AI tool as the source of the fabricated authorities.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
- Sanction amount:
- $30,000
What sanction did the court impose?
Each attorney ordered to pay $15,000 in punitive sanctions to the court registry ($30,000 total), jointly and severally liable for the appellees' full reasonable attorney fees on appeal across all three consolidated appeals, and jointly and severally liable for double costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The opinion also raised the prospect of further disciplinary proceedings.
Why does Whiting v. City of Athens, Tenn. matter for law firms using AI?
Whiting is the first published federal court of appeals decision to impose substantial monetary sanctions on attorneys for filing appellate briefs riddled with fabricated citations of the kind generative AI tools commonly produce. For managing partners at small and mid-sized firms, the case sets a marker that appellate panels are now openly asking whether briefs were AI-drafted and are willing to impose five-figure individual fines, fee-shifting, and double costs when verification fails. The court’s articulation of the standard, that counsel must have personally read and verified every citation regardless of source, is the operative rule firms should fold into written AI-use and brief-review policies.
The opinion attaches an appendix enumerating each fabricated citation per brief; the appendix specifically flags “Berg v. Knox Cnty., TN, 2024 WL 2012345, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 12, 2024)” with the notation “We cannot find this case. The WL citation does not generate a case.” The appendix’s per-citation diagnostic format is itself a marker firms can expect future appellate panels to adopt when documenting fabrication patterns.