In a case alleging that a trustee had breached his fiduciary duties, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal and sanctioned their attorney, finding that their opening and reply briefs were replete with misquoted and nonexistent legal authorities obtained through their attorney’s use of generative artificial intelligence (AI). Ibach v. Stewart, SC-2025-0106 (Ala. Apr. 24, 2026).
In 2024, Laurie Ibach and Mark Campbell filed a lawsuit against their uncle, Bruce Stewart, alleging a variety of claims, including that he had breached his fiduciary duties as trustee of trusts created by their grandparents. The circuit court granted Bruce’s motion for summary judgment on all of their claims, finding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Laurie and Mark appealed.
In its majority opinion, the Alabama Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs’ attorney, Perry Hall, had filed appellate briefs containing an “astounding” number of misquoted and fictitious cases in support of their arguments in both their opening and reply briefs. Ibach v. Stewart, SC-2025-0106, 7 (Ala. Apr. 24, 2026). The court issued an order requiring Perry to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing the briefs containing the inaccurate and fictitious citations. He moved to withdraw from representing Laurie and Mark. At the hearing, Perry admitted the citations were inaccurate and that he had used generative AI to obtain them. He apologized, acknowledged that sanctions were appropriate, and offered to reimburse Bruce for attorney’s fees and costs. Another attorney representing Laurie and Mark, who had not signed the briefs, filed a motion to allow each party to file a supplemental brief.
The court noted that the root of the problem was not with AI per se, but with the failure of attorneys to verify their AI-generated legal research. The court recognized the potential harm to the reputations of judges, courts, and parties whose names are used in fictitious opinions. In addition, the court noted that both Bruce and the court had expended substantial time and effort in trying to verify citations and cases that were misquoted or nonexistent.
The court found that Laurie’s and Mark’s briefs were wholly inadequate under Rule 28 of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, which requires appellants’ briefs to provide citations to legal authorities. Because they had failed to file a brief that was “even minimally adequate,” the court dismissed the appeal. Id. at 33. In addition, the court denied Laure’s and Mark’s’ motion to file supplemental briefs, holding that the rules of appellate procedure did not contemplate providing an attorney who had filed an unsatisfactory brief to have a “second bite at the apple” by filing a new brief after the closing of the briefing period. Id. at 34. Such a procedure would not only be fundamentally unfair to Bruce but would also impair the court’s ability to administer justice efficiently.
Notably, in his concurring opinion, Justice Cook stated: “I believe that sanctions for the use of hallucinated cases generated by artificial intelligence (“AI”) should generally be imposed against the lawyer rather than the client. However, the particularly egregious nature of [Perry]’s conduct here compels a stronger result than a mere affirmance.” Id. at 39, 40.
The majority also found that, because of the numerous misquoted and fictitious legal authorities that Perry had provided, the appeal lacked any legal basis and was frivolous. The court held that sanctions for a frivolous appeal were appropriate under Rule 38 of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court ordered Perry to pay Bruce’s attorney’s fees and costs and double any costs payable to the court. In addition, Perry was prohibited from making any other filings in the court unless they were signed by another attorney in good standing with the Alabama State Bar. The court also referred Perry to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline and granted his motion to withdraw from representing Laurie and Mark, noting that, if he had not filed the motion, it likely would have disqualified him from further participation in the case.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
