Kansas Judge Fines Attorneys Over AI-Generated Court Brief

Penalties range from $1,000 to $5,000 for false citations, fabricated cases, and misquoted rulings in patent infringement case.

Published on Feb. 6, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A Kansas federal judge recently imposed penalties on five attorneys responsible for mistakenly submitting a legal brief containing falsehoods created by artificial intelligence. The brief included citations to nonexistent lawsuits, made-up quotes attributed to judges, and references to real cases that held the opposite of what the brief claimed. The penalties ranged from $1,000 to $5,000 fines, public admonishments, and orders to implement procedures to ensure future court filings are accurate.

Why it matters

This case highlights the growing challenges attorneys face in verifying the accuracy of information generated by AI tools, as well as the potential consequences for submitting court documents containing fabricated or inaccurate material. It raises questions about the ethical responsibilities of lawyers to thoroughly review and fact-check any AI-assisted work before presenting it to the court.

The details

The five attorneys - Sandeep Seth, Kenneth Kula, Christopher Joe, Michael Doell, and David Cooper - were representing Lexos Media IP LLC in a patent infringement case against Overstock.com Inc. in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kansas. According to the ruling by U.S. District Court Senior Judge Julie Robinson, the attorneys mistakenly incorporated AI-generated citations, quotes, and case references into their legal brief, without properly verifying the accuracy of the information. This resulted in the brief containing numerous falsehoods, including a citation to a nonexistent lawsuit against Topeka's city government and made-up quotes attributed to judges' decisions.

  • On February 2, 2026, Judge Robinson issued her ruling and penalties.
  • On January 5, 2026, the five attorneys filed declarations in response to the judge's order to show cause why they shouldn't be penalized.

The players

Sandeep Seth

An attorney at Houston-based SethLaw PLLC who admitted to adding the AI-generated citations to the brief without checking their accuracy. He was fined $5,000, had his admission as an attorney in the case revoked, and was ordered to self-report to legal disciplinary authorities and submit a certificate outlining his firm's procedures to ensure future accuracy.

Kenneth Kula

An attorney at Dallas-based Buether Joe & Counselors LLC who was fined $3,000 and publicly admonished for violating his duty by signing documents he had failed to review and acknowledge his breach of legal rules.

Christopher Joe

The lead attorney on the case, from Buether Joe & Counselors LLC, who was fined $3,000, publicly admonished, and ordered to implement procedures to ensure future court filings are accurate, consider verification and training requirements for all members, and file a certificate outlining those procedures.

Michael Doell

A junior attorney at Buether Joe & Counselors LLC who was not fined but admonished, as the judge said he was placed in a difficult position by his supervising attorneys.

David Cooper

The local counsel for the case, from the Topeka firm Fisher Patterson Sayler & Smith LLP, who was fined $1,000 for signing documents without properly fact-checking the citations, but the judge noted he expressed remorse and shared steps his firm is taking to avoid future infractions.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“I should not have incorporated these without checking them first.”

— Sandeep Seth, Attorney (milawyersweekly.com)

What’s next

The judge ordered the attorneys to implement new procedures to ensure the accuracy of future court filings and file certificates outlining those steps.

The takeaway

This case underscores the critical importance for attorneys to thoroughly review and verify any information generated by AI tools before submitting it to the court, as the consequences for failing to do so can include significant fines, disciplinary action, and damage to the legal profession's credibility.