Arkansas DHS v. April Ward and Minor Child Respondents
SC Arkansas · Feb 5, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC Arkansas
- Record ID
- arkansas-dhs-v-april-ward-and-minor-child-respondents-2026-02-05
- Observed outcome
- The court issued a formal order of reprimand, noting the attorney's resignation and self-reporting to the Office of Professional Conduct as sufficient remedial measures.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued a formal reprimand to an attorney who filed a brief containing AI-generated fabricated case law and citations. The court determined the attorney violated Rule 11 by failing to verify the accuracy of the AI-produced content, ultimately accepting the attorney's resignation and self-reporting as appropriate sanctions.
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited cases that the court could not locate; court concluded citations may be fabricated and declined to cite them. || False Quotes: Case Law | Brief included direct quotations attributed to purported cases; court found the quoted authority could not be located and deemed the quotes likely fabricated. || Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Brief relied on a statute without noting the statute had changed; the statutory text did not support the proffered proposition.
Copilot output cited without verification draws Office of Professional Conduct referral; restrict consumer AI tools to non-filing work.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Other
- Trial
- Case Dismissed
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Microsoft Office Copilot
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court issued a show-cause order following the discovery of AI-generated inaccuracies in a filed pleading, resulting in a final order of reprimand.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The attorney admitted to using Microsoft Office Copilot.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Use only approved research and drafting tools for legal work.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.