- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Kansas Judge Fines Attorneys Over AI-Generated Court Brief
Penalties range from $1,000 to $5,000 for submitting false information created by artificial intelligence
Published on Feb. 6, 2026
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
A Kansas federal judge recently imposed fines ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 on a group of attorneys who mistakenly submitted a court brief containing falsehoods generated 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.
Why it matters
This case highlights the growing challenges attorneys face in verifying the accuracy of information, especially when using AI tools to assist in legal research and writing. The penalties imposed serve as a warning to lawyers about the importance of thoroughly reviewing any AI-generated content before submitting it to the court.
The details
Senior U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson penalized five attorneys - Sandeep Seth, Kenneth Kula, Christopher Joe, Michael Doell, and David Cooper - who were representing Lexos Media IP LLC in a patent infringement case against Overstock.com. The attorneys mistakenly included numerous falsehoods in their court brief that were blamed on the use of ChatGPT to find supporting case law. The penalties included fines ranging from $1,000 to $5,000, as well as public admonishments and orders to implement procedures to ensure future filings are accurate.
- On February 2, 2026, Judge Robinson issued her ruling and penalties.
- The attorneys filed declarations in response on January 5, 2026.
The players
Judge Julie Robinson
Senior U.S. District Judge in Kansas who imposed the penalties on the attorneys.
Sandeep Seth
Attorney at SethLaw PLLC in Houston who was fined $5,000 and had his admission to the case revoked for adding the AI-generated citations without verifying their accuracy.
Kenneth Kula
Attorney at Buether Joe & Counselors LLC in Dallas who was fined $3,000 and publicly admonished for signing documents he failed to review.
Christopher Joe
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 filings are accurate.
David Cooper
Local counsel from Fisher Patterson Sayler & Smith LLP in Topeka who was fined $1,000 for signing documents without fact-checking the citations.
What they’re saying
“I should not have incorporated these without checking them first.”
— Sandeep Seth, Attorney (nclawyersweekly.com)
What’s next
The judge ordered the attorneys to implement procedures to ensure future court filings are accurate, and Sandeep Seth was required to self-report to legal disciplinary authorities in the state where he is licensed.
The takeaway
This case serves as a warning to attorneys about the risks of relying on AI tools without proper verification, and highlights the importance of thoroughly reviewing any AI-generated content before submitting it to the court.
