Rasheem Carter, et al. v. UZGlobal LLC, et al.
D. New Mexico · May 1, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court sanctioned attorney Maxey Scherr for Rule 11 violations after she filed briefs containing sixteen AI-hallucinated cases. The court ordered a $1,000 fine, mandatory bar reporting, and completion of AI-focused CLE, while also permitting the opposing party to move for recovery of attorney fees and costs incurred due to the misconduct.
- Why the court cared
- The court determined that submitting AI-hallucinated cases is objectively unreasonable. Under Rule 11, the signing attorney is responsible for the content of filings regardless of whether an associate drafted them. The court noted that the attorney had received prior notice of a potentially fake citation but failed to review subsequent filings, demonstrating a lack of objectively reasonable effort to verify legal authorities.
- Why it matters now
- This case underscores that attorneys cannot delegate Rule 11 verification duties to associates or AI tools. It highlights the severe consequences of failing to perform a cursory review of filings, even after receiving notice of potential citation errors.
Why this matter is tracked
The court sanctioned attorney Maxey Scherr for violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) by filing briefs containing sixteen AI-hallucinated citations. Despite receiving notice from opposing counsel regarding an unlocatable case in April 2025, the attorney failed to verify subsequent filings, leading to the submission of additional fabricated authorities in June 2025. The court found the attorney's failure to perform a cursory review of filings signed under her name objectively unreasonable. Sanctions include a $1,000 fine, mandatory self-reporting to state bar disciplinary boards, proof of AI-related CLE attendance, and potential liability for opposing counsel's attorney fees and costs. The court emphasized that the attorney's signature creates non-delegable obligations regarding the accuracy of legal contentions.
This case underscores that attorneys cannot delegate Rule 11 verification duties to associates or AI tools. It highlights the severe consequences of failing to perform a cursory review of filings, even after receiving notice of potential citation errors.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Plaintiffs believe AI was used but do not know the specific program.
Order imposing sanctions following the court's issuance of two Orders to Show Cause regarding the use of non-existent case law in multiple filings.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified the citation as non-existent and could not locate any corresponding case under variant spellings.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no record of the cited Tenth Circuit decision and identified it as apparently non-existent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court determined the referenced Tenth Circuit citation could not be located and appears fabricated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court concluded the cited D. Colo. decision could not be found and appears to be a non-existent case.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Rasheem Carter, et al. v. UZGlobal LLC, et al.?
- The court sanctioned attorney Maxey Scherr for Rule 11 violations after she filed briefs containing sixteen AI-hallucinated cases. The court ordered a $1,000 fine, mandatory bar reporting, and completion of AI-focused CLE, while also permitting the opposing party to move for recovery of attorney fees and costs incurred due to the misconduct.
- Why does Rasheem Carter, et al. v. UZGlobal LLC, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This case underscores that attorneys cannot delegate Rule 11 verification duties to associates or AI tools. It highlights the severe consequences of failing to perform a cursory review of filings, even after receiving notice of potential citation errors.
- What does the public record establish about Rasheem Carter, et al. v. UZGlobal LLC, et al.?
- 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 Rasheem Carter, et al. v. UZGlobal LLC, et al. 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.