James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security
E.D. Michigan · Jul 13, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court imposed non-monetary Rule 11 sanctions on Attorney Erin Rich and her firm for factual misrepresentations in court filings. The sanctions require the completion of specific ethics and AI-related CLE courses and a mandatory audit of all pending motions in the Eastern District of Michigan to identify and correct similar inaccuracies.
- Why the court cared
- The court determined that the attorney's pattern of embellishment rose to the level of misrepresentation, violating the duty of candor under Rule 11. The court found the conduct willful, noting that the attorney failed to independently verify facts against the administrative record despite prior warnings regarding similar misconduct.
- Why it matters now
- This case highlights the judicial expectation for independent verification of AI-assisted work product and the consequences of failing to supervise staff or automated tools, particularly when prior warnings regarding factual accuracy have been issued.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Attorney Rich represented that on May 31, 2023 the provider observed the plaintiff's "speech was notably off," but the actual note stated the provider "did not notice that his speech was off notably at all." The court identified this as a misrepresentation of the medical record. Outcome: CLE. The court found Attorney Erin Rich submitted briefings that contained false or embellished factual statements drawn from medical records (e.g., misstating a speech-therapy note, misdating primary-care records, and asserting “numerous seizures” when the record showed a single generalized seizure). Rich admitted reliance on prior work product and that her firm occasionally uses AI to summarize records, but could not identify a specific tool. The court held the falsities violated Rule 11, found the conduct willful within the firm’s chain of command, and imposed non-monetary sanctions (CLE courses including ethics/AI topics and an order to review pending motions) to deter repetition.
This case highlights the judicial expectation for independent verification of AI-assisted work product and the consequences of failing to supervise staff or automated tools, particularly when prior warnings regarding factual accuracy have been issued.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Attorney admitted firm uses AI but could not identify the specific tool.
Opinion and Order issuing Rule 11 sanctions following a show-cause order, written response, and hearing.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Attorney Rich represented that on May 31, 2023 the provider observed the plaintiff's "speech was notably off," but the actual note stated the provider "did not notice that his speech was off notably at all." The court identified this as a misrepresentation of the medical record.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Rich claimed primary care records showed ongoing treatment through August 2024, but the cited records were from April–September 2022, predating the alleged disability period; the court found the timeline misstated.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Rich asserted the plaintiff had "numerous seizures," but the administrative record cited documents only a single generalized seizure requiring intubation/ICU; the court found no factual support for 'numerous' seizures.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security?
- The court imposed non-monetary Rule 11 sanctions on Attorney Erin Rich and her firm for factual misrepresentations in court filings. The sanctions require the completion of specific ethics and AI-related CLE courses and a mandatory audit of all pending motions in the Eastern District of Michigan to identify and correct similar inaccuracies.
- Why does James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security matter for legal AI risk?
- This case highlights the judicial expectation for independent verification of AI-assisted work product and the consequences of failing to supervise staff or automated tools, particularly when prior warnings regarding factual accuracy have been issued.
- What does the public record establish about James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security?
- 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.
- Which source supports this James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.