AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesWoodrow Jackson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Woodrow Jackson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

M.D. Georgia · Jul 14, 2025

GA / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationscontracttrialMonetaryProfessional
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court sanctioned attorney Brian Braddy for violating Rule 11 by filing a document containing nine hallucinated case citations generated by AI. The court ordered a $1,000 payment to the court registry, mandatory AI ethics CLE, and reimbursement of the defendant's attorney fees and costs.

Why the court cared
The court determined that while the attorney did not act in bad faith, the failure to verify citations before filing constituted a violation of Rule 11(b). The court emphasized that attorneys cannot delegate the duty of verifying legal authority to AI and that the failure to review AI-generated drafts is equivalent to allowing unlicensed practice.
Why it matters now
Staff transitions are no excuse; require a partner-level signoff verifying every cited case exists before any brief is filed.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 1 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case. Outcome: Monetary sanction; CLE requirement; Adverse Costs Order. Plaintiff's Counsel cited nine non-existent cases in a response to a motion to dismiss, which were generated using AI software. The court found this to be a violation of Rule 11, as the citations were not checked for accuracy. Counsel admitted the error, apologized, and explained the circumstances, including staff transitions and the use of AI. The court imposed a $1000 sanction, required Mr. Braddy to attend a CLE course on AI ethics, and ordered reimbursement of Defendant's attorney fees and costs.

Operational lesson

Staff transitions are no excuse; require a partner-level signoff verifying every cited case exists before any brief is filed.

Record details

GeorgiaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore GAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtM.D. Georgia
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit11th Circuit
DateJul 14, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary sanction of $1,000, mandatory AI ethics CLE, and reimbursement of defendant's attorney fees and costs.
Known amount$1,000
Professional sanctionMandatory completion of a CLE course on Artificial Intelligence and ethical obligations; firm held jointly liable for sanctions.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

Counsel admitted using AI software to generate the response.

Procedural posture

Post-hearing order following a show cause proceeding regarding Rule 11 violations for the submission of non-existent case law.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

9 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 1 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 2 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 3 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 4 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 5 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
  6. Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 6 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
  7. Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 7 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
  8. Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 8 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
Show 1 additional discrepancies
  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 9 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Woodrow Jackson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company?
The court sanctioned attorney Brian Braddy for violating Rule 11 by filing a document containing nine hallucinated case citations generated by AI. The court ordered a $1,000 payment to the court registry, mandatory AI ethics CLE, and reimbursement of the defendant's attorney fees and costs.
Why does Woodrow Jackson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company matter for legal AI risk?
Staff transitions are no excuse; require a partner-level signoff verifying every cited case exists before any brief is filed.
What does the public record establish about Woodrow Jackson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company?
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 Woodrow Jackson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company 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.

Medical Buyers Group LLC d/b/a Integrity v. Candice Pence, et al.M.D. Georgia · Nov 18, 2025same court · fake citations + contractChamberlain v. City of AlbanyM.D. Georgia · May 1, 2026same court · fake citations + trialRyan Andrew Nelson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty CompanyS.D. Georgia · Oct 28, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + contractSister City Logistics, Inc. v. John FitzgeraldS.D. Georgia · Jun 27, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + contractErin Booker v. The Kroger Co.N.D. Georgia · Aug 28, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trialHannah Renee Payne v. The StateSC Georgia · May 5, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trial