Williams v. Kirch
Court of Appeals of Indiana · Ind. Ct. App. · Indiana bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se appellant cited at least three nonexistent cases in opening brief opposing small-claims judgment; opposing party identified them.
Consequence
Appellant admonished for AI-generated citations. Small-claims judgment and $650 attorney's fee affirmed. No sanction (none requested).
Lesson
Williams is the first published Ind. COA AI-citation admonishment; seminal precedent for Cingel, Donovan, and Tippecanoe.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Williams v. Kirch, 268 N.E.3d 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025); No. 25A-SC-00196 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2025) (Vaidik, J.)
- Decided
- August 18, 2025
Summary
Indiana Court of Appeals decision authored by Judge Vaidik (Tavitas and Felix concurring) affirming a small-claims judgment for the appellee and an attorney's fee award against pro se appellant Kurt Williams. The opinion contains a separate section, "Warning regarding AI-generated citations," addressing Williams's appellate brief, which cited at least three nonexistent cases including "Davis v. United States, 569 U.S. 764 (2013)," "Bourne v. Scarborough (IN 2014)," and "In re Marriage of Nigh, 2016 IL App (5th) 150274." The appellee identified the nonexistent cites in her response brief; Williams offered no explanation in his reply. The court admonished Williams but declined to impose sanctions, noting the appellee did not request any. The opinion cautions both attorneys and pro se litigants against using AI to conduct legal research without verifying citations independently. Williams v. Kirch is the foundational Indiana appellate AI-citation case, cited in both Cingel v. Ferreri (Sept. 2025) and the Indiana Tax Court's Tippecanoe and Donovan opinions.
- AI tool:
- Generative artificial intelligence inferred from fictitious case citations; specific tool not identified
What sanction did the court impose?
Small-claims judgment for appellee affirmed. Attorney's fee award of $650 affirmed. Pro se appellant admonished for citing fictitious AI-generated cases. No additional sanction.
Why does Williams v. Kirch matter for law firms using AI?
Williams v. Kirch is the foundational Indiana state-court AI-citation opinion. Authored by Judge Vaidik for a panel of Tavitas, Vaidik, and Felix, the opinion was published in August 2025 and has since become the controlling authority that subsequent Indiana courts cite when addressing AI-fabricated cites. By May 2026, Williams v. Kirch had been cited in at least three subsequent Indiana appellate decisions: Cingel v. Ferreri (Sept. 2025, same panel), Tippecanoe County Assessor v. Goergen (Oct. 2025, Tax Court), and Donovan v. Clark Cnty. Assessor (Dec. 2025, Tax Court).
The Williams panel chose admonishment rather than sanctions, partly because the appellee did not request sanctions and partly because the panel was reluctant to impose monetary penalties on a pro se litigant in a small-claims appeal. But the opinion’s holding is deliberately broad: it cautions “attorneys and pro se litigants alike” against unverified AI use, signaling that future panels would not be limited to admonishment in cases where opposing counsel does request sanctions.
For an Indiana law practice, Williams v. Kirch is the entry point for understanding the Indiana state-court AI-citation regime. A firm’s internal AI policy should reference Williams as the controlling state authority and HoosierVac as the controlling federal authority in the Southern District of Indiana. Together they establish the operational expectation: independent cite verification is mandatory, the failure mode is documented in published opinions, and attorneys (unlike sympathetic pro se litigants) face monetary sanctions when the cite fails verification.
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.
- Cite Williams v. Kirch as the controlling Indiana appellate authority on AI-citation conduct in any policy document, training materials, or compliance program addressing generative AI use in legal practice.
- Train staff that an admonishment-only outcome in Indiana state court does not protect against parallel federal sanctions; HoosierVac (S.D. Ind. May 2025) imposed a $6,000 personal sanction against an attorney for the same conduct, scaled down from the magistrate's $15,000 recommendation.
- Document the firm's brief-finalization workflow to demonstrate independent citation verification, so any defective cite that surfaces is presumed clerical rather than AI-fabricated.