Alabama Workers' Comp Blawg

Alabama Supreme Court Sends Clear Message on AI Misuse in Legal Briefs

On April 24, 2026, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed an appeal and imposed significant sanctions after determining that the appellants’ briefs were riddled with fabricated legal citations, many of which were many generated by artificial intelligence.

In Ibach v. Stewart, which was authored by Justice Chris McCool (currently available only via Westlaw), the Alabama high court put out one of the clearest statements yet from a state high court on improper use of AI in legal filings and delivered the Court’s first major AI-related warning shot to lawyers using AI as a source instead of a tool.

The case arose out of a family trust dispute. Laurie Ibach and Mark Stewart challenged their uncle, Bruce Stewart, in his role as trustee of two family trusts. They alleged undue influence, lack of capacity, breach of trust, and tortious interference related to amendments that ultimately favored Bruce.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bruce, finding the claims barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, however, the focus shifted dramatically - not to the merits of the trust dispute, but to the conduct of appellants’ counsel.

Counsel submitted appellate briefs containing a staggering number of inaccurate, irrelevant, and outright fabricated citations. Many of these authorities did not exist at all and were apparently generated by an AI tool. Both the court and opposing counsel were forced to expend significant time and resources verifying and debunking these citations.

The Alabama Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal in its entirety, finding it frivolous. In addition, the Court imposed substantial sanctions on counsel, including:

* Payment of $17,200 in attorney’s fees and costs to the appellee

* Assessment of double costs payable to the Court

* A prohibition on filing future documents in the Court unless co-signed by another attorney in good standing

* Referral to the Alabama State Bar for potential disciplinary action

The Court also denied any attempt to cure the deficiencies through supplemental briefing.

The Court’s reasoning was grounded in several key principles:

First, the briefs failed to comply with Rule 28(a)(10) of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, which requires arguments to be supported by valid legal authority. The inclusion of fabricated and non-existent citations rendered the briefs “grossly deficient.”

Second, because the cited authorities were largely fictitious or misrepresented, the appellants effectively presented no legal basis for their arguments. The Court emphasized that it is not its role to conduct a party’s legal research or salvage unsupported claims.

Third, the appeal was deemed frivolous under Rule 38. The Court clarified that an appeal can be frivolous not only due to improper motive, but also when it is presented in a fundamentally deficient manner.

Fourth, the Court highlighted the tangible harm caused by this conduct. The submission of false citations wasted judicial resources, burdened opposing counsel, and undermined confidence in the legal system.

Finally, while the Court made clear that AI itself is not the problem, it emphasized that the failure to verify AI-generated content is inexcusable. The misconduct was particularly egregious because it continued even after warnings, justifying dismissal as a sanction.

My Two Cents:

This decision is not anti-AI. It is anti-carelessness. The takeaway is straightforward but critical:

1. AI is a starting point, not an authority. Treat AI-generated research as preliminary, not final.

2. Verify everything. Every case, quote, and proposition must be independently confirmed with trusted sources like Westlaw, Lexis, or official court opinions.

3. Confirm relevance and accuracy. A citation must both exist and actually support the proposition for which it is offered.

4. Document your process. Maintain a record of how authorities were verified, especially when AI tools are used.

5. Conduct a final pre-filing audit. Before submitting any brief, ensure full compliance with appellate rules and confirm that all citations are valid and accurate.

6. Act quickly if errors are discovered. Prompt correction and transparency may mitigate consequences, doubling down will not.

The broader lesson is one of professional responsibility. Technology can enhance efficiency, but it does not replace judgment. Courts will not tolerate shortcuts that compromise the integrity of the judicial process.

Justice McCool was a fitting author for the Court’s first major AI-related warning shot and delivered a clear, rules-based opinion that reinforces a simple principle: technology may assist lawyers, but it does not excuse them from doing their job.

About the Author:

This article was prepared by Mike Fish, an attorney with Fish Nelson & Holden, LLC, a law firm dedicated to representing self-insured employers, insurance carriers and funds, and third-party administrators in all matters related to workers’ compensation. Fish Nelson & Holden is a member of the National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network. If you have any questions about this article or Alabama workers’ compensation in general, please contact Fish by e-mailing him at mfish@fishnelson.com or by calling him directly at 205-332-1448.