Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al.
E.D. Louisiana · Mar 20, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- E.D. Louisiana
- Record ID
- daniel-gentry-v-calvin-thompson-et-al-2026-03-20
- Observed outcome
- The court imposed monetary sanctions totaling $1,250 ($250 on the junior attorney, $1,000 on the supervisor) and issued a formal admonishment to the Chief Deputy City Attorney.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,250
Why this matter warrants attention
The court sanctioned two attorneys for filing a motion containing nine AI-hallucinated case citations, violating Rule 11. The court imposed a $250 fine on the junior attorney and a $1,000 fine on the supervising attorney, while issuing a formal admonishment to the Chief Deputy City Attorney for the department's failure to verify legal research.
The court reasoned that Rule 11 imposes an objective standard of reasonableness requiring attorneys to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the law. The court determined that relying on ChatGPT without verifying citations constitutes a violation of this duty. The court further reasoned that supervisors bear heightened responsibility for ensuring that subordinates read and verify every cited case, particularly when unusual formatting suggests potential AI generation.
Require a second attorney to Shepardize every citation before filing; ChatGPT output without verification is automatic Rule 11 exposure.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- Monetary
- Warning
- Professional
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,250
- Procedural posture
- The court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding Rule 11 sanctions following the filing of a motion to dismiss containing hallucinated citations; the court subsequently held a hearing and issued a final order imposing monetary sanctions and a formal admonishment.
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
Counsel admitted to using ChatGPT.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement a mandatory verification protocol requiring attorneys to read and Shepardize every case citation before filing.
- Establish clear internal policies governing the use of generative AI in legal research and drafting.
- Require supervisory review of all AI-assisted drafts to identify potential hallucinations or unusual formatting.
- Conduct department-wide training on the risks of AI-generated legal content and the requirements of Rule 11.