VIRGIL v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SETH CAMERON VIRGIL, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD
)
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC,
et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 5, 2025, Defendants RentGrow Inc. and Yardi Systems, Inc., (hereinafter
"Defendants") filed their reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss. [Dkt. 302.] In that
brief, Defendants identified six cases cited by Plaintiff's attorneys, James Policchio and Kyle
Schumacher,1 in Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss, [Dkt. 294], that appeared to be
fabricated, as well as several citations to cases that exist but do not relate to the issues for which
they are cited. See [Dkt. 302 at 5-6]. The reply brief further identified two additional cases cited
by Plaintiff in two other filings that appeared to be fabricated. See [Dkt. 302 at 7]. On
December 15, 2025, Defendants filed a Notice to the Court of Further Fabricated Case Law.
[Dkt. 333.] In that filing, Defendants identified two additional fabricated cases cited by
Plaintiff's counsel, this time in Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants
Mission Rock Residential, LLC, and Abbotts Run Asset Management, LLC, [Dkt. 331], a
document that was filed after Defendants had raised the issue of fabricated citations.
1 The signatures of both Mr. Policchio and Mr. Schumacher appear on each of the briefs at issue.
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD Document 395 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On December 16, 2025, the Undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3), directing Mr. Policchio and Mr. Schumacher to appear
and show cause why they should not be sanctioned for violating Rule 11(b). [Dkt. 338.] The
Order to Show Cause also required counsel to file a Notice containing a chart with the following
information:
1. 	A list of each filing Plaintiff's counsel have made in this case;
2. 	For each filing, an indication whether the filing contains any case citations;
3. 	For each filing that contains citations, a list of those citations; and
4. 	For each citation, either a certification that Plaintiff's counsel have confirmed that
it exists and is accurately cited or an indication that it does not exist or is not
accurately cited.
Counsel did so. [Dkt. 345.] The Notice confirms that the following citations do not exist or are
not accurately cited:
• 	In Docket 115: Myers v. Passport Health, 2013 WL 5819270 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 29, 2013)
(non-existent)
• 	In Docket 240: Myers v. Passport Health, 2013 WL 5819270 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 29, 2013)
(non-existent)
• 	In Docket 289: Merriman v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2021 WL 5937732 (D. Kan. Dec.
16, 2021) (non-existent)
• 	In Docket 294: Treece v. Perrillo, No. 1:17-cv-00406, 2018 WL 3815004 (S.D. Ind. Aug.
10, 2018); Armstrong v. Kroger Co., 621 F.2d 934 (8th Cir. 1980); Hinkle v. CBE Grp.,
827 F.3d 129 (5th Cir. 2016); Wigington v. Hill-Soberg Co., 396 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1968);
Jenkins v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 736 F. Supp. 2d 962 (E.D. Va. 2010); and Rodriguez
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD Document 395 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
v. Pasquarella, 2019 WL 2411480 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 2019) (all non-existent); Harris v.
Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2009); Wright v. Experian Info.
Sols., Inc., 805 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2015); In re TJX Cos. Retail Sec. Breach Litig., 524
F. Supp. 2d 83 (D. Mass. 2007); and King v. Gen. Info. Servs., Inc., 903 F. Supp. 2d 303
(E.D. Pa. 2012) (all misrepresented).
• 	In Docket 331: Myers v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 750 F.3d 910, 915-17 (11th Cir. 2014),
and Schuh v. American Express Bank, FSB, 2019 WL 132741 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2019)
(both non-existent).
Mr. Policchio and Mr. Schumacher appeared at the show cause hearing on January 6,
2026. [Dkt. 351.] The Undersigned now makes the following recommendation.
I. Mr. Schumacher
The testimony at the Show Cause Hearing has convinced the Undersigned that, while
Mr. Schumacher's signature was affixed to the filings at issue by Mr. Policchio, Mr. Schumacher
was not responsible for the filings in any way. The filings were made by Mr. Policchio and
Mr. Policchio takes full responsibility for them. In addition, Mr. Policchio confirmed during the
hearing that Mr. Schumacher never saw the briefs in question prior to their filing, and never
authorized Mr. Policchio to affix Mr. Schumacher's signature to those briefs. Accordingly, the
Undersigned does not recommend any sanctions against Mr. Schumacher.
II. Mr. Policchio
At the hearing, Mr. Policchio acknowledged that he was fully responsible for the errors in
the briefs that he signed and filed. Mr. Policchio was contrite and did not attempt to excuse his
lapses in any way; indeed, his reaction to his own failures is best described as mortification. By
way of explanation—but not as an excuse—Mr. Policchio explained that he had grossly
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD Document 395 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
underestimated the time that litigating this case against dozens of defendants would require and
that he was overwhelmed by the workload. In addition, for monetary reasons, Mr. Policchio had
terminated his access to LEXIS, which he was accustomed to using for legal research and cite-
checking. The Undersigned believes Mr. Policchio's representation that he has now taken
appropriate measures to ensure that no such lapses will occur in the future.
Mr. Policchio's response to the position he finds himself in is commendable. However,
that does not change the fact that Mr. Policchio finds himself in this position because he failed to
take the most basic of actions—checking the citations in his own briefs before filing them.2 As
discussed below, this failure constitutes a failure to satisfy a fundamental obligation of an
attorney to his client and to the Court.
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11
Rule 11 provides in relevant part:
(b) Representations to the Court. 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
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 . . . .
2 The Court notes that most of the cases cited below involve AI-generated hallucinated citations.
Mr. Policchio's explanation for the errant citations in his briefs does not involve the use of AI.
Rather, Mr. Policchio stated that the errors were the result of cutting and pasting from documents
Mr. Policchio had saved into a case management program when working on prior cases. It is
unclear to the Court how that process could have resulted in non-existent citations being created,
but the distinction is irrelevant. The issue in this and the cited cases is not the use of AI to assist
in legal work; it is the failure to review the validity and content of the cases cited in briefs filed
with the Court.
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD Document 395 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). A court may, sua sponte, order an attorney to show cause why conduct
specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3). If the
court then determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate
sanction on that attorney. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1). An order imposing a sanction must describe
the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(6).
"The standard for imposing sanctions under Rule 11 is an objective determination of
whether a sanctioned party's conduct was reasonable under the circumstances." Brown v. Fed'n
of State Med. Boards of the U.S., 830 F.2d 1429, 1435 (7th Cir. 1987) (collecting
cases), overruled on other grounds by Mars Steel Corp. v. Cont'l Bank N.A., 880 F.2d 928 (7th
Cir. 1989). One specific inquiry for determining whether sanctions are appropriate is "whether
the party or attorney made a reasonable inquiry into the law." Brown, 830 F.2d at 1435, see Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). Indeed:
Rule 11 requires counsel to study the law before representing its contents to a
federal court. An empty head but a pure heart is no defense. The Rule requires
counsel to read and consider before litigating. 	Counsel who puts the burden of
study and illumination on the defendants or the court must expect to pay attorneys'
fees under the Rule.
Thornton v. Wahl, 787 F.2d 1151, 1154 (7th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).
Courts have consistently held for decades that failing to check the treatment and
soundness—let alone the existence—of a cited case warrants sanctions. See, e.g., Salahuddin v.
Coughlin, 999 F. Supp. 526, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (noting that Shepardizing would have led
defense counsel to a key case); Brown v. Lincoln Towing Serv., No. 88C0831, 1988 WL 93950
(N.D. Ill. 1988) (imposing sanctions where the attorney filed a claim based on an expired federal
statute); Pravic v. U.S. Indus.-Clearing, 109 F.R.D. 620, 623 (E.D. Mich. 1986) (holding that the
act of relying on another attorney's memorandum without Shepardizing the cases cited warranted
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD Document 395 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
sanctions); Blake v. Nat'l Cas. Co., 607 F. Supp. 189, 191 (C.D. Ca. 1984) (in imposing
sanctions, noting that Shepardizing cases already cited would have led to controlling authority).
The advent of modern legal research tools implementing features such as Westlaw's
KeyCite and Lexis's Shepardization has enabled attorneys to easily fulfill this basic duty, and
there is simply no reason for an attorney to fail to do so. Such has been the view for decades: "It
is really inexcusable for any lawyer to fail, as a matter of routine, to Shepardize all cited cases (a
process that has been made much simpler today than it was in the past, given the facility for
doing so under Westlaw or LEXIS)." Gosnell v. Rentokil, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 508, 510 n.1 (N.D. Ill.
1997). Confirming that a case is good law is a basic, routine matter and something that is
expected from a practicing attorney. As noted in the case of an expert witness, an individual's
"citation to fake, AI-generated sources . . . shatters his credibility." See Kohls v. Ellison, 2025
WL 66514, at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025). The same is true even if the fake citations were
somehow generated without the knowing use of AI.
Mr. Policchio admits that he did not make the requisite reasonable inquiry into the law
before filing his brief. Whether or not AI was the genesis of the non-existent citations,
Mr. Policchio's failure to review them before submitting them to the court was a clear violation
of Rule 11. See United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1066-67 (E.D. Cal. 2025),
reconsideration denied, No. 2:24-cr-0280-DJC, 2025 WL 1067323 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2025)
("The Court need not make any finding as to whether Mr. Francisco actually used generative AI
to draft any portion of his motion and reply, including the fictitious case and quotation. . . .
Citing nonexistent case law or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is making a false statement
to a court. It does not matter if generative AI told you so.") (citations and quotations marks
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD Document 395 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
omitted). As the court in Johnson v. Dunn, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1256-57 (N.D. Ala. 2025),
aptly put it:
Every lawyer knows that citing fake cases in a court filing is a terrible decision.
No one here is attempting to defend it. In the few years that generative AI has
affected court filings, it has become well established that "[m]any harms flow
from the submission of fake opinions." Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d
443, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2023); see, e.g., Dehghani v. Castro, No. 2:25-cv-00052-
MIS-DLM, 782 F.Supp.3d 1051 (D.N.M. May 9, 2025); Bevins v. Colgate-
Palmolive Co., No. 25-576, 2025 WL 1085695 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2025); Ferris
v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, No. 3:24-cv-304-MPM-JMV, 778 F.Supp.3d 879
(N.D. Miss. Apr. 16, 2025); United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (E.D.
Cal. 2025), reconsideration denied, 2:24-cr-0280-DJC, 2025 WL 1067323 (E.D.
Cal. Apr. 9, 2025); Sanders v. United States, 176 Fed. Cl. 163 (Fed. Cl. 2025);
Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489 (D. Wyo. 2025); Gauthier v.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 1:23-cv-281, 2024 WL 4882651 (E.D. Tex.
Nov. 25, 2024); Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024).
Some such harms affect the case at hand: "The opposing party wastes time and
money in exposing the deception," and "[t]he client may be deprived of arguments
based on authentic judicial precedents." Mata, 678 F. Supp. 3d at 448. While the
court takes time to investigate, other cases may be disrupted or deprived of judicial
attention. Other harms affect the judicial system:
There is potential harm to the reputation of judges and courts whose
names are falsely invoked as authors of the bogus opinions and to the
reputation of a party attributed with fictional conduct. It promotes
cynicism about the legal profession and the American judicial
system. And a future litigant may be tempted to defy a judicial ruling
by disingenuously claiming doubt about its authenticity.
Id. at 448-49.
The fact that Mr. Policchio did not file the brief with the intention of deceiving the court
does not excuse his failure to check the citations therein. See Ordower v. Feldman, 826 F.2d
1569, 1574 (7th Cir. 1987) ("Good faith is not a defense to the imposition of Rule 11
sanctions."). Whether a case cite is obtained from a law review article, a hornbook, or through
independent legal research, the duty to ensure that any case cited to a court is good law is nearly
as old as the practice of law itself. As previously noted, the development of resources such as
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD Document 395 Filed 02/12/26 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Shephard's citation system provided lawyers the tools to accomplish that most basic of tasks.3 It
is Mr. Policchio's failure to comply with that most basic of requirements that makes his conduct
sanctionable.
The Undersigned finds that Mr. Policchio violated Rule 11 and that sanctions for that
violation are appropriate. In imposing sanctions, a court must keep in mind the basic principle
that "[i]n choosing a sanction . . . 'the least severe sanction [that is] adequate to serve the purpose
should be imposed.'" Brown, 830 F.2d at 1437 (quoting Cabell v. Petty, 810 F.2d 463, 466 (4th
Cir. 1987) (footnote omitted) (quoting Schwarzer, Sanctions Under the New Federal Rule 11—A
Closer Look, 104 F.R.D. 181, 201 (1985))). One such purpose is to impose costs on the careless
or reckless lawyer who unnecessarily burdened opposing counsel or the court. See Thornton,
787 F.2d at 1154. While compensation is an important consideration in issuing sanctions, "[a]n
even more important purpose is deterrence." Brown, 830 F.2d at 1438; see Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(c)(4).
The Undersigned, regrettably, has faced this issue in two other cases in the past year. In
the first, monetary sanctions of $6,000 were imposed for three briefs containing hallucinated
citations. See Mid Cent. Operating Eng'rs Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, 2025 WL
1511211 (S.D. Ind. May 28, 2025) ($6,000 sanction).4 In the second, the Undersigned has
recommended a $7,500 sanction for a brief containing hallucinated citations. See Davis v.
3 Frank Shepard introduced his print citation index in the 1870s, though other precursor citation
series had existed since the early nineteenth century. See Laura C. Dabney, Citators: Past,
Present, and Future, 27 Legal Reference Servs. Q. 165, 166 (2008).
4 The Undersigned recommended a $15,000.00 sanction in that case: $5,000 for each of three
briefs that contained non-existent citations. The District Judge reduced the sanction to $6,000,
taking into account "the steps [the sanctioned attorney] has taken 'to educate himself on the
responsible use of AI in legal practice' and adhere to 'the highest standards of professional
conduct moving forward.'" HoosierVac LLC, 2025 WL 1511211 at *1.
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD Document 395 Filed 02/12/26 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
Marion Cnty. Superior Ct. Juv. Det. Ctr., 2025 WL 2502308 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 2, 2025). The
attorney's objection to that recommendation remains pending. A multitude of other cases around
the country have dealt with the same issue. See, e.g., Gauthier, 2024 WL 4882651 ($2,000
sanction); Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., 2024 WL 4308032 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2024)
($2,500 sanction); Mata, 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 ($5,000 sanction); In re Richburg, 2025 WL
2470473 (Bankr. D.S.C. Aug. 27, 2025); Chenco Engineering & Consulting Gmbh v. Do-
Fluoride New Materials Co. Ltd., 2025 WL 2430556 (D. Idaho Aug. 22, 2025); Hall v. Acad.
Charter Sch., 2025 WL 2256653 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2025). There are undoubtedly many more
than those cited herein.
Given the distressing number of cases calling out this conduct—citing to cases in court
filings without checking the accuracy of the citations—it is clear that the imposition of modest
sanctions has failed to act as a deterrent. Accordingly, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that
Mr. Policchio be sanctioned $10,000.00 for his Rule 11 violations in this case. The Court finds
that no lesser sanction will serve the necessary deterrent purpose.
B. Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct
The District Court for the Southern District of Indiana holds attorneys to the ethical
obligations set forth in the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. Local R. 83-5(f).
When misconduct or allegations of misconduct that, if substantiated, would
warrant discipline of an attorney who is a member of the bar of the court or has
practiced in the court come to the attention of a judicial officer, including a
bankruptcy judge or a magistrate judge, whether by complaint or otherwise, the
judicial officer may refer the matter to the Chief Judge. 	The Chief Judge may
then refer the matter to one or more of the following:
(1) the Indiana Attorney Disciplinary Commission for investigation and
prosecution,
(2) another disciplinary authority having jurisdiction over the attorney,
(3) the Department of Justice or other law enforcement agency, or
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD Document 395 Filed 02/12/26 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
(4) recruited 	counsel 	for 	investigation 	and 	the 	formulation 	of 	a
recommendation for further action.
Local R. of Disciplinary Enf't 2(a). At least three of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct
are implicated here, and the Undersigned will address them each in turn.
1. Rule 1.1. Competence
"A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation
requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the
representation." Ind. R. of Prof. Conduct 1.1. It is clear that Mr. Policchio failed to provide
competent representation when he submitted five briefs that contained fabricated legal citations.
These actions flouted the requisite legal knowledge, skill, preparation, and especially
thoroughness reasonably necessary for Mr. Policchio's representation of his client.
2. Rule 3.1. Meritorious Claims and Contentions
"A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein,
unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good
faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law." Ind. R. of Prof.
Conduct 3.1. This Rule mirrors the requirements of Rule 11(b)(2), and likewise proscribes
presenting unfounded legal bases. There is no merit in relying on non-existent cases, so Mr.
Policchio's conduct clearly disregarded this Rule.
3. Rule 3.3. Candor Toward the Tribunal
"A lawyer shall not knowingly: . . . make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or
fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the
lawyer." Ind. R. of Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1). It is undisputed that Mr. Policchio made false
statements of law to the court when he relied on cases that do not exist. Moreover, Mr. Policchio
did so "knowingly"—he knowingly failed to fulfill his duty to review the briefs he filed and
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD Document 395 Filed 02/12/26 Page 10 of 12 PageID
#: <pageID>

11
verify that the law he presented was good law. As such, the Undersigned believes that discipline
for violation of Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 is appropriate as well.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Undersigned, in his discretion, hereby
RECOMMENDS that Mr. Policchio be personally SANCTIONED in the amount of $10,000.00
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for filing five briefs that contained citations to
non-existent cases. In addition, the Undersigned REFERS the matter of Mr. Policchio's
misconduct in this case to the Chief Judge pursuant to Local Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement
2(a) for consideration of any further discipline that may be appropriate.
Mr. Policchio is ORDERED to provide a copy of this order to his client, Seth Virgil, and
to file a certification that he has done so within seven days of the date of this order.
In closing, as noted above, this is the third time in the last year that the Undersigned has
faced a similar issue. We live in a world of rapid technological advancement. A world in which
many individuals have concerns that their jobs may be replaced by increasingly educated
machines.
The practice of law is not just a job, it is a profession; a profession with standards and
ethical responsibilities. One of the most troubling aspects of these situations is the lack of
respect for the profession, and the lack of respect by the offending attorneys for their own
personal capabilities, that these situations represent.
One would expect that, when individuals choose this profession, they do so in part
because they believe they have some talent for the work. One would expect that, after several
years of law school, and more years of practice, those attorneys believe they bring some level of
value to their clients beyond that of a machine. Yet these situations represent an abdication of
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD Document 395 Filed 02/12/26 Page 11 of 12 PageID
#: <pageID>

12
those personal and professional responsibilities to those very machines, which to date have not
proven themselves up to the task.
While the Undersigned has long recognized the value of the proper and efficient use of
technology, my confidence in the profession and the generations of lawyers who have shaped it
prevents me from believing that it can ever be replaced by a machine, no matter how advanced.
However, the preservation of that profession requires ever increasing levels of diligence and
vigilance from each and every attorney and judge involved in the process. Absent that, someday
clients may well be better off accepting advice from a machine as opposed to a careless and
inattentive attorney. That is a day the profession of law must not allow to come to pass.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation shall be filed with the Clerk in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and failure to timely file
objections within fourteen days after service shall constitute a waiver of subsequent review
absent a showing of good cause for such failure.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12 FEB 2026
Distribution:
Service will be made electronically on all ECF-
registered counsel of record via email generated
by the court's ECF system
Chief Judge James R. Sweeney, II
Case 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD Document 395 Filed 02/12/26 Page 12 of 12 PageID
#: <pageID>