In re Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc., et al.
M.D. Alabama (Bankruptcy) · Nov 20, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- M.D. Alabama (Bankruptcy)
- Record ID
- in-re-jackson-hospital-clinic-inc-et-al-2025-11-20
- Observed outcome
- Public reprimand, revocation of pro hac vice privileges, requirement to serve the order on clients, and requirement to provide the order to the attorney's home bar.
- Known monetary consequence
- $55,721
Why this matter warrants attention
The court sanctioned counsel for filing pleadings containing AI-generated fabricated case law and false quotations. The court issued a public reprimand, revoked the attorney's pro hac vice status, and mandated that the firm notify its clients and the attorney's home bar of the disciplinary order.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found pervasive fabricated citations in Progressive's Motion to Reconsider after comparing cited authorities to the arguments. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court identified false quotations attributed to legal authorities in the Motion to Reconsider (misstated or invented quotations). || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Court found misleading and misrepresented statements of legal authority and doctrine in Progressive's filings, consistent with objections from DIP Lender and Debtors.
Revoking pro hac vice and notifying the attorney's home bar is now standard — pervasive fabrications are treated as competence failures.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Bankruptcy
- Trial
- Bar Referral
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- $55,721
- Procedural posture
- Adjudicated following a Show Cause Order and motions for sanctions filed by the DIP Lender and Debtors.
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 court refers to 'generative artificial intelligence' generally without naming a specific platform.
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.
- Assign a responsible reviewer for AI-assisted research and drafting.
- Set a written rule for permissible AI use and mandatory verification.