Wilkinson v. Schmelzer
Iowa Court of Appeals · Iowa Ct. App. · Iowa bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se father's custody-appeal briefs, struck several times for rule violations, cited one nonexistent appellate rule; the mother sought AI sanctions.
Consequence
No sanction: the court found no hallucinated case and could not tell a typo from AI. Mother awarded appellate fees as prevailing party.
Lesson
Without a fabricated case, courts may be unable to distinguish poor drafting from unverified AI, but the duty to verify applies either way.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Wilkinson v. Schmelzer, No. 25-0799 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2026)
- Decided
- August 19, 2026
Summary
Brett Thomas Wilkinson appealed a Dubuque County order granting Lacey Schmelzer physical care of the parties' son. His counsel moved to withdraw shortly after the notice of appeal, and Wilkinson proceeded pro se. The Iowa Supreme Court struck his brief, then his amended briefs, then an amended brief, attachment, and appendix that contained prohibited confidential information. The next amended brief again contained such information; the supreme court denied Schmelzer's motion to dismiss and ordered it refiled with the confidential information removed. Wilkinson filed his fourth amended brief and then moved for a limited remand; in resisting it, Schmelzer asked that sanctions be imposed for his "purported use of AI in his limited-remand motion and briefs." The supreme court denied the remand motion, ordered the sanctions issue submitted with the appeal, and transferred the case to the Court of Appeals. The only nonexistent authority the court identified was a single reference to "Iowa R. App. P. 6.1004(3)." The court also noted that Wilkinson's briefs lacked record citations and that he had repeatedly violated the same appellate rules across multiple versions of his briefs, even after the supreme court told him which rules he was violating.
- AI tool:
- Alleged by the appellee; not found (the court found no hallucinated case and could not say whether one nonexistent rule citation was "a simple typo or the result of unchecked AI use")
- Amount or terms:
- None; sanctions declined. Separately, the appellee was awarded all of her requested appellate attorney fees as the prevailing party, and all costs were assessed to the appellant
What did the court warn about?
The Court of Appeals affirmed the physical-care ruling, holding that Wilkinson failed to preserve his evidentiary and credibility claims and that placing the child with Schmelzer was in the child's best interests. It declined to sanction him for purported AI use: "Here, we can find no hallucinated case. And it is impossible for us to say with certainty whether Brett's single reference to the nonexistent 'Iowa R. App. P. 6.1004(3)' was a simple typo or the result of unchecked AI use." It added that "regardless of whether Brett's briefs were directly drafted by him or a faraway datacenter, he is bound by the same duty to verify his briefs' accuracy and compliance with our appellate rules." The court held that Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413 could not supply a basis for a sanction or fee award in an appeal. Separately, as the prevailing party, Schmelzer was awarded all of her requested appellate attorney fees after the court considered her fee affidavit and the parties' ability to pay, and all costs were assessed to Wilkinson.
Why does Wilkinson v. Schmelzer matter for law firms using AI?
Wilkinson addresses the evidentiary problem in AI sanctions requests head-on. The court accepted the premise, which it attributed to the appellant, that “mere use of [AI] drafting assistance … does not constitute sanctionable conduct,” and restated its statement in Luke v. Department of Health and Human Services that “self-represented litigants and attorneys alike have a duty to independently verify the authenticity and veracity of all sources and assertions when relying on artificial intelligence tools to prepare trial or appellate court filings.” It then identified the practical difficulty: “The twist is that, absent the presence of a hallucinated case, it is difficult to differentiate poor human drafting from unverified generative AI.”
With no fabricated case in the briefs and only one nonexistent rule number, the court declined to sanction. It did not treat that as an excuse for the briefs’ defects. It emphasized that Wilkinson “consistently violated the same Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure over multiple iterations of his initial and amended briefs,” at a cost to the court and to the other side, but concluded that Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413 could not be used to sanction appellate filings.
The practical result still ran against the appellant: affirmance on every issue, an award of all of the appellee’s appellate attorney fees, and costs. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this court’s view, the verification duty is the same “regardless of whether” a brief was drafted by a person or “a faraway datacenter.”
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.
- Consider how a sanctions request premised on suspected AI use will be proved. The court said that 'absent the presence of a hallucinated case, it is difficult to differentiate poor human drafting from unverified generative AI.'
- Verify rule citations as well as case citations. The only nonexistent authority here was a procedural rule number.
- Review the procedural basis for any sanction request. Because Iowa's appellate rules do not incorporate Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413, the court said 'we cannot use rule 1.413 as a basis for a sanction or fee award.'
Sources
Primary sources
- Use of AI is alleged by the appellee only; the court expressly declined to find it. The Charlotin tracker records the allegation.