Woodward Harbor LLC, et al v. City of Mandeville, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WOODWARD HARBOR L.L.C., ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 23-5824
CITY OF MANDEVILLE, ET AL. SECTION “O”
ORDER AND REASONS
The Court ordered Michael R. C. Riess, Johanna Elizabeth Lambert, John R.
Walker, and Thomas H. Huval, counsel for Plaintiffs, to appear to show cause as to
why they should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11(b)(2) by signing and filing a written opposition1 to Defendant’s motion
to dismiss that contained hallucinated case citations, incorrect quotations, and false
summaries of cases and legal rules. The four attorneys appeared before the Court on
Tuesday, February 24, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 3, 2025, attorneys Michael R. C. Riess and John R. Walker
electronically signed and filed a joint opposition2 to Defendant City of Mandeville’s
motion to dismiss. Johanna Elizabeth Lambert and Thomas Huval’s names were also
included in the signature blocks. The motion contained citations to at least eleven
cases that either did not exist or were incorrectly summarized, relied on, or quoted
from. Three days later, Defendant filed a reply brief3 specifically identifying multiple
1 ECF No. 97.
2 Id.
3 ECF No. 99.
Case 2:23-cv-05824-BSL-JVM Document 117 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 8

2
examples of non-existent caselaw in Plaintiffs’ opposition. Plaintiffs took no action in
response to the reply brief: they did not withdraw their opposition, file a surreply, or
otherwise contend with Defendant’s claim that they had cited fake authorities.4
On February 5, 2026, the Court issued an Order5 dismissing with prejudice
Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
Court’s Order noted that Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss
contained numerous examples of non-existent case citations, which the Court
concluded were likely hallucinated citations arising from Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ use of
generative AI. The Court issued an Order6 to Show Cause requiring each of Plaintiffs’
attorneys whose names appeared on the brief to file into the record a formal
explanation of the presence of hallucinated and improper case citations. The Order
also required the four attorneys to appear before the Court on February 24, 2026 at
10:00 a.m.
The attorneys each filed responses7 to the Court’s Order that included
declarations and affidavits explaining the presence of hallucinated case citations in
the opposition. In his declaration,8 John R. Walker of Jones Fussell, LLP, confirmed
that he alone was responsible for preparing and filing the joint opposition to the
motion to dismiss. Mr. Walker admitted to having used generative AI tools to assist
4 All four attorneys claimed not to have read the reply brief. Mr. Walker stated that he
reviewed the reply (but not closely) and ultimately did not see Defendant’s allegations regarding the
false citations. Clearly, Defendant’s reply brief should have alerted Plaintiffs’ attorneys to the
potential errors within their opposition and thereby prompted Plaintiffs to address the matter with
the Court immediately and proactively.
5 ECF No. 101.
6 ECF No. 103.
7 ECF Nos. 104, 105, 106.
8 ECF No. 104-1.
Case 2:23-cv-05824-BSL-JVM Document 117 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 8

3
in drafting the motion, but claimed he was new to using AI tools and unaware that
the tools could generate false case citations. Mr. Walker took full responsibility for
the presence of hallucinated citations in the opposition. He averred that his law
partner at Jones Fussell, Mr. Huval, was on vacation without cellular service or
internet access when drafts of the motion were circulated.9 Mr. Walker had no
expectation that Mr. Huval would review the motion before it was filed.10 He also
acknowledged that while he forwarded drafts of the motion to co-counsel Mr. Riess
and Ms. Lambert of Riess LeMieux LLC, the group understood that the responsibility
for verifying the accuracy of the motion lay entirely with Mr. Walker.11 Mr. Huval’s,
Mr. Riess’s, and Ms. Lambert’s declarations and affidavits agreed with this version
of events.12 Each attorney was forthright in acknowledging the errors and apologizing
to the Court.13
On February 24, 2026, the Court held a show-cause hearing to determine
whether sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11(b) were warranted in this matter.14
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 governs the signing of pleadings, motions,
and other papers, representations to the Court, and sanctions. Rule 11(b) states that
(b) By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other
paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—
an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 ECF Nos. 105-1, 106-2, 106-3. In addition to submitting their affidavits, Mr. Riess and Ms.
Lambert retained outside law firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, to prepare
a formal response to the Court’s show-cause order. ECF No. 106.
13 ECF Nos. 104-1, 105-1, 106-2, 106-3.
14 ECF No. 110.
Case 2:23-cv-05824-BSL-JVM Document 117 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 8

4
person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances: . . .
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are
warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument
for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for
establishing new law[.]
Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1), “If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to
respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may
impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the
rule or is responsible for the violation.”
In determining whether an attorney has complied with Rule 11, the standard
under which he is judged is “an objective, not a subjective, standard of
reasonableness.” Snow Ingredients, Inc. v. Snowizard, Inc., 833 F.3d 512, 528 (5th
Cir. 2016) (citing Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc., 332 F.3d 796, 802 (5th Cir.
2003)). “‘[T]he central purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in district court
and thus . . . streamline the administration and procedure of the federal courts.”
Cordova v. Univ. Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 92 F.4th 266, 273 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990)). A lawyer who signs a
brief “violates Rule 11 if he fails to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the law and facts
underlying his motion[.]” Walker v. City of Bogalusa, 168 F.3d 237, 241 (5th Cir.
1999). “[A] litigant’s obligations with respect to the contents of these papers are not
measured solely as of the time they are filed with or submitted to the court, but
include reaffirming to the court and advocating positions contained in those pleadings
and motions after learning that they cease to have any merit.” FED. R. CIV. P. 11
Case 2:23-cv-05824-BSL-JVM Document 117 Filed 03/05/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Advisory Committee Note to 1993 Amendment. “An attorney’s good faith is [not]
enough to protect [her] from Rule 11 sanctions.” Childs v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 29 F.3d 1018, 1024 (5th Cir. 1994).
III. ANALYSIS
The problem of AI-fabricated case citations is well-documented throughout the
judiciary, including in this circuit. See, e.g., Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 2026
WL 456842, at *2 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026) (“Regrettably, despite numerous news
stories, CLE presentations, scholarly articles, and judicial entreaties, AI-hallucinated
case citations have increasingly become an even greater problem in our courts, and
the problem shows no sign of abating.”) (collecting cases). “To ethically use generative
AI in the practice of law—which we do not dispute can be helpful if done properly and
carefully—a lawyer must ‘ensure that the legal propositions and authority generated
are trustworthy.’” Id. (citation omitted). “Failure to do so ‘abdicate[s] one’s duty,
waste[s] legal resources, and lower[s] the public’s respect for the legal profession and
judicial proceedings.’” Id. (citation omitted) (alteration in original).
In this case, one attorney has candidly admitted to the Court that he alone was
responsible for using generative AI technology to draft the opposition motion without
verifying the accuracy of the citations.15 In doing so, Mr. Walker failed in his
obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the law and facts underlying Plaintiff’s
brief. See City of Bogalusa, 168 F.3d at 241. The Court thus finds that Mr. Walker
violated Rule 11(b)(2) by citing to fabricated AI-generated cases and by “fail[ing] to
15 ECF No. 104-1.
Case 2:23-cv-05824-BSL-JVM Document 117 Filed 03/05/26 Page 5 of 8

6
determine that the argument[s] []he made [were] ‘legally tenable.’” Park v. Kim, 91
F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024) (quoting Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393). Although the
Court accepts Mr. Walker’s representations that he was unaware of AI’s potential for
errors when he filed the brief, the Court is troubled that Mr. Walker, a long-time
practicing attorney, lacked knowledge of an issue so well-publicized in the legal
community. The Court does, however, acknowledge and appreciate Mr. Walker’s
unabashed candor and regret regarding his lack of diligence in this situation. The
Court further recognizes that Mr. Walker has agreed to repay his clients the fees he
earned in drafting the opposition brief.
As for the other three attorneys whose signatures appeared on the brief, the
Court accepts their representations that they were not meaningfully involved in
preparing the brief, were unaware that Mr. Walker had used generative AI to draft
the brief, and, because of the division of labor among the attorneys, relied upon Mr.
Walker’s case citations and legal analysis. The Court reminds the attorneys, however,
that when delegating brief-drafting responsibility to a cocounsel, the attorneys must
still comply with Rule 11 when they act as cosigners to the brief. See Pavelic & LeFlore
v. Marvel Ent. Grp., 493 U.S. 120, 126 (1989) (“[T]he purpose of Rule 11 as a whole is
to bring home to the individual signer his personal, nondelegable responsibility.”);
FED. R. CIV. P. 11 Advisory Committee Note to 1993 Amendment (“The person
signing, filing, submitting, or advocating a document has a nondelegable
responsibility to the court, and in most situations is the person to be sanctioned for a
violation.”). Particularly when engaging in the joint representation of a client with
Case 2:23-cv-05824-BSL-JVM Document 117 Filed 03/05/26 Page 6 of 8

7
counsel from another law firm, attorneys are wise to adopt practices and procedures
to ensure cocounsel shares a commitment to using research tools responsibly and
abiding by Rule 11’s strictures. Here, the Court recognizes and commends the
Plaintiffs’ law firms for working to strengthen their firms’ internal controls in the
wake of this show-cause hearing—including drafting AI procedures, mandating
responsible practices by cocounsel, and training employees on dangers of improper AI
usage—to avoid a situation like this in the future.
When considering sanctions under Rule 11, the Fifth Circuit instructs district
courts to “utilize the sanction that furthers the purposes of Rule 11 and is the least
severe sanction adequate to such purpose.” Jenkins v. Methodist Hosps. of Dallas,
Inc., 478 F.3d 255, 265 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The Court finds that judicial
admonition is a sufficient sanction here and declines to sanction Mr. Riess, Ms.
Lambert, and Mr. Huval.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that John R. Walker is sanctioned personally for his
conduct in this case in the amount of $1,000. The sanction is to be paid by Tuesday,
March 10, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. to:
Clerk, United States District Court Eastern
District of Louisiana 500 Poydras Street,
Room C151 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Case 2:23-cv-05824-BSL-JVM Document 117 Filed 03/05/26 Page 7 of 8

8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Walker attend 2 hours of
Continuing Legal Education on the topic of Generative A.I. by December 31, 2026.
Mr. Walker must file proof of CLE attendance with the Court by December 31, 2026.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of March, 2026.
BRANDON S. LONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-05824-BSL-JVM Document 117 Filed 03/05/26 Page 8 of 8