Question · AI Citation Sanctions
What was Johnson v. Dunn and what does it mean for AI legal tools?
Since Mata v.
01 / The answer
The short answer
Johnson v. Dunn is a July 23, 2025 sanctions order from the federal court in the Northern District of Alabama. Three Butler Snow lawyers defending a former Alabama prisons commissioner filed motions citing cases that ChatGPT had invented. The court said reprimands and modest fines were not deterring this conduct, so it publicly reprimanded the three lawyers, removed them from the case, ordered the opinion published and sent it to the Alabama State Bar. The lesson for AI legal tools is that the signing lawyer, not the tool, answers for every citation.
02 / The rule
What AI Citation Sanctions requires
Since Mata v. Avianca in 2023, courts have sanctioned lawyers for filing briefs with fake or misdescribed authority produced by AI tools, under Rule 11, state equivalents and inherent power. Sanctions have escalated from small fines to public reprimands, disqualification, fee-shifting and bar referrals, so any AI-assisted drafting needs a human verification step before filing.
- 01Read and confirm every cited case, quotation and statute exists and supports the stated proposition before signing (Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2)).
- 02Treat AI output as unverified research; the signing lawyer stays personally responsible for every citation.
- 03Correct false citations promptly and candidly once discovered; do not compound them with false explanations to the court.
- 04Supervise associates, staff and contract lawyers who use AI tools, and enforce the firm's verification policy in practice.
03 / Records
Records to keep
- 01Per-filing citation-check record showing who verified each authority
- 02Firm AI-use policy and dated training records
- 03List of approved AI tools and their vetting notes
- 04Supervision sign-off on briefs drafted with AI assistance
Optional evidence · where Planisphere fits
Keep a record anyone can check
When your team meets a duty, Planisphere can seal the event it reports as a receipt.
A disclosure shown, a review signed, a model change approved: the event your system reports.
The event becomes a sealed receipt, dated and attributed to whoever is signed in.
Paste the receipt into Verify. No account or key.
A record supports your compliance evidence process. It is not a legal finding or a certification. Systems that call Planisphere's gate API can also hold or refuse an action before it runs.
SOURCES
Go back to the source
U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. (RECAP copy via CourtListener)
U.S. District Court, N.D. Ala. (docket copy via Docket Alarm)
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
RELATED
Related: AI Citation Sanctions: the full guide · Can I be sanctioned for AI-hallucinated citations? · Does having an AI policy protect my firm from sanctions? · How do I verify AI legal research before filing?