Withers v. City of Aberdeen
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Mississippi, Aberdeen Division · N.D. Miss. · Mississippi bar guidance
Conduct
Both sides' pro hac vice counsel filed briefs with fabricated cases from unverified AI output; local counsel on each side did not check them.
Consequence
Pro hac vice revoked and two-year N.D. Miss. bar for both lead counsel; $8,000 in total fines across four lawyers; local counsel disqualified; three state bars notified.
Lesson
Local counsel who lend a signature without reading the filing share the sanction, even when they never used AI themselves.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Withers v. City of Aberdeen, No. 1:24-CV-218-SA-RP, Sanctions Order (N.D. Miss. June 8, 2026) (Aycock, J.), ECF No. 123
- Decided
- June 8, 2026
Summary
Both sides filed briefs with fabricated authority in a civil action by Tom Withers, III against the City of Aberdeen. The City's briefs cited Miller v. City of Greenville, 243 So. 2d 81 (Miss. 1971), and three N.D. Miss. decisions (Riley v. City of Tupelo, Buckner v. Walker, and Harris v. City of Grenada) that the court could not locate; the plaintiff's opposition cited City of Grenada v. Harrelson and Crittendon v. State Farm, which fared no better. In motions for leave filed after the court's show-cause order, "the attorneys admitted that the hallucinatory citations cited by them, and identified by the Court, resulted from unverified AI use." Plaintiff's pro hac vice counsel Kathleen M. Wilson, a Louisiana solo practitioner, had drafted her filing with "First Drafts," an AI-powered drafting program; the City's pro hac vice counsel Kathryn Y. Williams, a partner at Daniel, Williams & Associates, PLLC (Texas), had relied on AI research software her firm acquired, without independent verification. Neither local counsel, Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway (Christian & Small, LLP) for the plaintiff and Mark C. McClinton for the City, used AI, and both said they were unaware their co-counsel had.
- AI tool:
- Plaintiff's counsel: "First Drafts" (AI drafting program); defense counsel: an unnamed AI legal-research product her firm acquired
- Sanction amount:
- $8,000 total in fines to the court registry: Wilson $2,500 (plus AI-ethics CLE), Williams $3,500, Ridgeway $1,000, McClinton $1,000; pro hac vice revoked and two-year N.D. Miss. appearance bar for Wilson and Williams; local counsel disqualified; copies to the Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas bars
What sanction did the court impose?
Senior District Judge Sharion Aycock revoked Wilson's and Williams' pro hac vice admissions and barred each from entering an appearance in any case before the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. Wilson was fined $2,500 and ordered to attend a CLE on AI with an ethics component within 60 days; Williams was fined $3,500. Ridgeway and McClinton were disqualified from the case and fined $1,000 each. All fines are payable to the court registry within 30 days. The court found Wilson and Williams acted in bad faith and the two local counsel negligently, directed the Clerk to send the order to the Mississippi Bar, the Louisiana Bar, and the Texas Bar, and kept the existing stay in place with new counsel to appear by August 7, 2026 (the plaintiff may instead proceed pro se).
Why does Withers v. City of Aberdeen matter for law firms using AI?
Withers is the rare order that sanctions every lawyer on both sides of a case. Judge Aycock began from the premise that the court was “yet again ‘burden[ed] [with] addressing AI hallucinations in court filings,’” and then sorted the four attorneys by what each had done. The two pro hac vice lawyers who generated the defective briefs with AI and filed them unverified were found to have acted in bad faith; the two resident attorneys who sponsored them were found negligent. The remedies track that line: revocation of pro hac vice status and a two-year bar from the district for the first pair, disqualification from the case for the second, and fines for all four.
The local-counsel holding reaches lawyers who never used AI. Ridgeway sponsored Wilson’s admission and served as local counsel; McClinton was Williams’ sponsoring resident attorney and had previously allowed her to sign his name to filings he had not read. Neither used AI. The court nonetheless held that “resident attorneys are responsible for providing guidance and oversight of non-resident attorneys” and observed that “[i]n an era of rampant unverified AI usage within the legal field, this case presents a prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubberstamp when acting as local counsel.” Both had self-reported to the Mississippi Bar before the order issued.
The order also shows how a sanctions record travels. Judge Aycock directed the Clerk to transmit it to the bankruptcy judge presiding over In re Troylond Malon Wise, where Wilson was separately sanctioned on April 9, 2026 for AI-hallucinated filings made two months after the Withers show-cause hearing, and to the District of New Jersey judge in a matter Williams had cited as a scheduling conflict that the court found she had misrepresented. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that a single sanctions order can reach the lawyer’s other courts and licensing bodies directly.
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.
- Document what local or sponsoring counsel reviews before signing. The court found both resident attorneys violated their oversight duties under L.U. Civ. R. 83.1(d)(3), and under Rule 11 disqualified them and fined them $1,000 each, even though neither used AI.
- Review signature-authority practices. McClinton had previously let Williams affix his signature to filings he had not read; the court treated that practice as a breach of the resident attorney's oversight duty.
- Verify that a firm AI policy is followed on each filing, not just adopted. Williams' firm had a 2025 policy requiring independent verification of the research tool's output; the court treated her disregard of that policy as part of its bad-faith finding.
- Consider the reach of a single order: the two-year bar covers every case in the district, and the Clerk sent the order to three state bars and to the judges in two other matters.