TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Kattom v. Bondi

W.D. Louisiana · Mar 6, 2026

Jurisdiction: federal
Court: W.D. Louisiana
Record ID: kattom-v-bondi-2026-03-06
Observed outcome: The court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction against the attorney, payable personally.
Known monetary consequence: $1,000

ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The court sanctioned attorney Kenneth A. Mayeaux $1,000 for filing a memorandum containing fabricated case citations and incorrect quotations generated by ChatGPT. The court held that the attorney failed to fulfill his Rule 11 duty to verify the accuracy of legal authority before submitting it to the court.

Why the decision-maker cared

Fabricated: Case Law | Memorandum cited cases that did not exist; Court found multiple fabricated case citations generated in the filing. || False Quotes: Case Law | Memorandum included incorrect quotations attributed to cases; Court identified several incorrect quotations in the filing.

Why it matters now

ChatGPT is not an approved legal research tool; ban consumer LLMs from citation drafting and log every research tool used.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

Fake Citations
Fabricated Quotes
Civil Rights
Trial
Monetary

AI attribution: Admitted
Recorded tool: ChatGPT
Known monetary consequence: $1,000
Procedural posture: The court issued an Order and Reasons following a show-cause proceeding regarding potential sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

Attorney used ChatGPT to draft the memorandum.

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).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

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.

EXPLAINABLE COMPARATORS

Related public matters

Herbert Brooks v. Lowes Home Centers LLCW.D. Louisiana · May 18, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + trial Travis C. Mills et al. v. Rocket Mortgage LLC et al.W.D. Louisiana · Nov 6, 2025same court · fake citations + trial Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al.E.D. Louisiana · Mar 20, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + civil rights

Why this matter warrants attention

Why the decision-maker cared

Why it matters now

ChatGPT is not an approved legal research tool; ban consumer LLMs from citation drafting and log every research tool used.

Failure modes and consequences

Fake Citations

Fabricated Quotes

Civil Rights

Trial

Monetary

AI attribution

Admitted

Recorded tool

ChatGPT

Known monetary consequence

$1,000

Procedural posture

The court issued an Order and Reasons following a show-cause proceeding regarding potential sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.