Kevin Leiske et al. v. Robert Gregory Kidd et al.
Delaware Ch. · Jul 1, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- Delaware Ch.
- Record ID
- kevin-leiske-et-al-v-robert-gregory-kidd-et-al-2026-07-01
- Observed outcome
- The court issued an Order to Show Cause directing the lead attorney and their law firm to file affidavits explaining their GenAI usage, cite-checking procedures, and why sanctions should not be imposed.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Delaware Court of Chancery issued an Order to Show Cause requiring counsel and their law firm to justify why they should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(c) and the court's inherent authority for submitting filings containing fabricated legal citations and mischaracterized precedents generated by an unverified GenAI tool.
The court reasoned that Rule 11(b) imposes a nondelegable duty on attorneys to conduct a reasonable inquiry to ensure legal contentions are warranted by existing law. Submitting hallucinated citations constitutes a potential violation of this duty. The court further noted that counsel's failure to correct mischaracterized legal propositions even after being alerted to the errors, and the attempt to blame a paralegal, compounded the breach of the duty of candor. Under Rule 11(c)(1), the firm is held jointly responsible for violations absent exceptional circumstances.
This case underscores that the duty of candor and Rule 11 verification requirements are nondelegable. It highlights judicial intolerance for 'hallucinated' legal authority and the expectation that law firms maintain robust internal policies and supervision for GenAI usage.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Other
- Trial
- Ordered To Show Cause
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order to Show Cause issued July 1, 2026, requiring affidavits from counsel and the law firm by July 15, 2026.
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 a generative artificial intelligence tool.
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 mandatory human verification for all AI-generated citations and legal propositions.
- Establish firm-wide written policies governing the use of GenAI in legal drafting.
- Ensure that cite-checking procedures are performed by qualified legal professionals rather than relying solely on automated tools or paralegal delegation.
- Conduct immediate remedial review of all filings if opposing counsel identifies potential inaccuracies.