Moore v. MC Architects Inc., et al.
D. Hawai'i · May 5, 2026 · J. Michael Seabright
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Hawai'i
- Record ID
- moore-v-mc-architects-inc-et-al-2026-05-05
- Observed outcome
- The court sanctioned plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $1,000 for filing documents containing fabricated citations and record errors.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction on plaintiff's counsel after counsel admitted that the client used AI tools to draft court filings that contained numerous fabricated case citations and record-citation errors. Counsel accepted full responsibility for the resulting procedural deficiencies.
The court identified that the plaintiff's oppositions contained numerous citation errors and record misrepresentations, prompting an inquiry into the use of AI tools. Counsel admitted the client used AI in drafting the filings and accepted responsibility for the resulting errors.
This case illustrates the risks of client-led drafting using AI without attorney oversight. It serves as a reminder that counsel remains professionally responsible for the accuracy of all filings, regardless of the tools or parties involved in the drafting process.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,000
- Procedural posture
- The court imposed the sanction during the pendency of dispositive motions, following a court-issued order for counsel to explain citation errors identified in the plaintiff's oppositions.
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 the use of AI tools generally without naming a specific product.
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.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.