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.

Published on Feb. 6, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A federal judge in Kansas has imposed fines ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 on five attorneys who submitted a legal brief containing numerous falsehoods created by artificial intelligence. The brief cited nonexistent lawsuits, fabricated judicial quotes, and real cases that held the opposite of what the brief claimed. The judge also ordered the attorneys to implement new verification procedures for future court filings.

Why it matters

This case highlights the growing challenges attorneys face as AI tools become more advanced and integrated into legal research and writing. It raises concerns about the ethical obligations of lawyers to ensure the accuracy and integrity of court submissions, even when using AI assistants. The penalties serve as a warning to the legal community about the risks of over-relying on AI without proper oversight and fact-checking.

The details

U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson fined the five Texas and Kansas-based attorneys who represented Lexos Media in a patent infringement case against Overstock.com. The attorneys - Sandeep Seth, Kenneth Kula, Christopher Joe, Michael Doell, and David Cooper - signed a brief that contained numerous falsehoods generated by the AI tool ChatGPT, including citing a nonexistent lawsuit, fabricating judicial quotes, and misrepresenting real court rulings. The fines ranged from $1,000 to $5,000, with the most senior attorney, Sandeep Seth, receiving the highest penalty. The judge also ordered the attorneys to implement new verification procedures to ensure the accuracy of future court filings.

  • On February 2, 2026, Judge Robinson issued her ruling imposing the penalties.
  • The attorneys filed declarations on January 5, 2026 in response to the judge's order to show cause.

The players

Judge Julie Robinson

A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas who imposed the penalties on the attorneys.

Sandeep Seth

A Houston-based attorney at SethLaw who admitted to adding the AI-generated citations to the brief without verifying their accuracy.

Kenneth Kula

A Dallas-based attorney at Buether, Joe & Counselors who violated his duty by signing documents he had failed to review.

Christopher Joe

The lead attorney on the case from Buether, Joe & Counselors who violated his duty by signing documents he had failed to review.

David Cooper

A Topeka-based attorney at Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith who signed documents without fact-checking the citations.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

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

— Sandeep Seth, Attorney, SethLaw (rilawyersweekly.com)

What’s next

The judge ordered the attorneys to implement new verification procedures to ensure the accuracy of future court filings. She also required them to file certificates outlining the steps their firms are taking to prevent similar issues in the future.

The takeaway

This case serves as a wake-up call for the legal community about the risks of over-relying on AI tools without proper oversight and fact-checking. It underscores the ethical obligations of attorneys to ensure the integrity of court submissions, even when using advanced technologies like ChatGPT. The penalties imposed by the judge highlight the serious consequences that can arise from AI-generated inaccuracies in legal documents.