McCormick v. Texakoma Financial
E.D. Texas · Jun 11, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- E.D. Texas
- Record ID
- mccormick-v-texakoma-financial-2026-06-11
- Observed outcome
- Public reprimand, $5,000 penalty, mandatory CLE, firmwide citation audit, and one-year certification requirement for future filings.
- Known monetary consequence
- $6,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The court sanctioned attorney Amy L.B. Ginsburg for filing a brief containing fictitious case law and fabricated quotes, likely generated by AI. Sanctions included a public reprimand, a $5,000 penalty, mandatory CLE, a comprehensive firmwide citation audit, and a one-year requirement to certify the verification of all future citations in the district.
The court found that Ginsburg failed to perform a reasonable inquiry into the veracity of citations and quotes, violating Rule 11(b). The court rejected her 'wrong version' and 'clerk error' explanations as not credible, noting that even a cursory review would have revealed the fictitious nature of the authorities. The court determined that financial sanctions alone were insufficient to deter future misconduct, necessitating a public reprimand and mandatory remedial measures to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process.
This case illustrates the high threshold for judicial credibility when counsel blames AI-generated hallucinations on staff. It establishes a rigorous remedial framework for attorneys who fail to verify AI-assisted filings, emphasizing that public reprimands and mandatory audits are increasingly viewed as necessary deterrents.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tort
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Alleged
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- $6,000
- Procedural posture
- Order to show cause issued May 15, 2026; hearing held May 28, 2026; sanctions order issued June 11, 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 law clerk used AI to assist in drafting.
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
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.