“The Mistake Will Not Recur [Until Two Sentences From Now]”

Every day this week so far Law360 has reported on a new AI-related sanctions order, and I’m sure these are just the ones Law360 made space for. Pretty soon they’ll need a separate newsletter just for that topic (and if they do, I will subscribe to it). I too do not have space (well, time) to write about all of these, so there needs to be some distinguishing characteristic for a story to qualify. “Dummy relies on generative-AI output” is no longer sufficiently newsworthy. Today’s sufficiently-newsworthy example involves a decision by the Supreme Court of Alabama, which not only sanctioned the AI-using attorney but dismissed his clients’ appeal because it found the briefs were “grossly deficient.” Ibach v. Stewart, No. SC-2025-0106 (Ala. Apr. 24, 2026). The facts of the case are unimportant to us, until we reach Section II, entitled “[Counsel’s] Extensive Use of Nonexistent or Misquoted Authorities.” How extensive? “Astoundingly” so, it turns out. This was first identified, as usual, by…