In
what
may
be
one
of
the
most
significant
appellate
sanctions
rulings
yet
involving
fabricated
case
citations,
the
6th
U.S.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
has
imposed
substantial
penalties
on
two
Tennessee
attorneys
for
filing
briefs
containing
more
than
two
dozen
fake
or
misrepresented
citations.
The
court
sanctioned
attorneys
Van
R.
Irion
and
Russ
Egli,
ordering
each
to
pay
$15,000
in
punitive
fines
to
the
court
registry,
plus
joint
responsibility
for
the
appellees’
full
attorney
fees
on
appeal
and
double
costs.
The
sanctions
stem
from
consolidated
appeals
in
Whiting
v.
City
of
Athens,
Tennessee,
arising
from
litigation
over
a
2022
fireworks
show
and
its
aftermath.
Worth
noting,
however,
is
that
the
court
did
not
expressly
find
that
the
fabricated
citations
were
the
result
of
using
generative
AI.
Rather,
the
court
emphasized
that
no
filing
should
contain
citations,
however
generated,
that
a
lawyer
has
not
personally
read
and
verified.
Extensive
Misconduct
In
its
March
13
opinion,
the
three-judge
panel
—
consisting
of
Judges
Jane
B.
Stranch,
John
K.
Bush
and
Eric
E.
Murphy
—
catalogued
extensive
problems
with
the
briefs
submitted
by
Irion
and
Egli
on
behalf
of
their
client
Glenn
Whiting.
“All
told,
we
found
over
two
dozen
fake
citations
and
misrepresentations
of
fact
in
Whiting’s
briefs,”
wrote
Judge
Bush
for
the
court,
noting
that
this
was
“a
conservative
estimate”
that
excluded
typos
or
sloppy
citations
that
could
be
attributed
to
drafting
errors
rather
than
professional
misconduct.
The
court
attached
a
detailed
appendix
documenting
specific
instances
of
fabricated
or
misrepresented
authority
across
multiple
briefs
filed
in
the
three
consolidated
appeals.
The
problems
fell
into
several
categories:
Non-existent
cases:
Several
citations
pointed
to
cases
that
do
not
exist.
For
example,
one
brief
cited
“Berg
v.
Knox
Cnty.,
TN,
2024
WL
2012345,
at
*4
(6th
Cir.
Mar.
12,
2024)”
for
a
proposition
about
judicial
recusal.
The
court
found
no
such
case
exists
—
the
Westlaw
citation
generates
no
results,
and
the
only
source
on
Westlaw
citing
to
a
Sixth
Circuit
decision
called
“Berg
v.
Knox
Cnty.”
is
Whiting’s
own
briefing.
Incorrect
case
citations:
Other
citations
pointed
to
real
cases
but
with
wrong
reporters
or
page
numbers.
One
brief
cited
“Jones
v.
Hamilton
Cnty.,
29
F.4th
647,
655
(6th
Cir.
2022)”
for
a
proposition
about
Section
1927
sanctions.
The
Federal
Reporter
citations
actually
correspond
to
two
unrelated
Tenth
Circuit
cases,
one
involving
unfair
competition
and
another
involving
a
guilty
plea,
neither
of
which
discusses
attorneys’
fees
or
sanctions.
Fabricated
quotations:
Multiple
briefs
contained
quoted
language
that
does
not
appear
in
the
cited
sources.
For
instance,
the
briefs
repeatedly
quoted
the
Sixth
Circuit
as
stating
“[t]he
mere
fact
that
a
plaintiff
did
not
prevail
does
not
mean
that
the
claim
was
frivolous”
in
Adcock-Ladd
v.
Secretary
of
the
Treasury,
227
F.3d
343,
350
(6th
Cir.
2000).
The
court
found
that
Adcock-Ladd
does
not
contain
this
quoted
language
and
is
not
about
frivolous
cases
at
all
—
it
addresses
whether
attorneys’
fees
should
be
based
on
the
plaintiff’s
or
defendant’s
home
market.
Cases
cited
for
unsupported
propositions:
Some
real
cases
were
cited
for
legal
propositions
they
do
not
address.
One
brief
cited
United
States
v.
Alvarez,
567
U.S.
709
(2012)
for
the
proposition
that
“the
First
Amendment
does
not
protect
speech
that
knowingly
asserts
false
statements
of
fact.”
The
court
noted
that
Alvarez
actually
states
the
opposite,
with
the
plurality
opinion
“reject[ing]
the
notion
that
false
speech
should
be
in
a
general
category
that
is
presumptively
unprotected.”
Record
misrepresentations:
The
briefs
also
misrepresented
the
factual
record.
In
one
appeal,
Whiting
argued
that
the
district
court
imposed
sanctions
sua
sponte
without
proper
notice.
But
the
court
found
that
sanctions
were
actually
issued
on
the
city’s
motion,
which
expressly
requested
sanctions
under
28
U.S.C.
§
1927
—
a
critical
factual
error
that
undermined
Whiting’s
entire
due
process
argument.
Show
Cause
Order
After
discovering
the
citation
problems,
the
Sixth
Circuit
issued
an
order
requiring
Irion
and
Egli
to
explain
why
they
should
not
be
sanctioned.
The
order
directed
them
to
provide
copies
of
all
cited
cases
from
Westlaw
or
LexisNexis,
highlight
quoted
material,
explain
who
wrote
the
briefs,
disclose
whether
the
briefs
were
ghostwritten,
state
whether
they
used
gen
AI,
and
explain
their
cite-checking
procedures.
Rather
than
respond
substantively
to
these
directives,
Irion
and
Egli
argued
that
the
show
cause
order
was
“void
on
its
face
for
failing
to
include
a
signature
of
an
Article
III
judge,”
was
“motivated
by
harassment
of
the
Respondent
attorneys,”
and
“reflect[ed]
illegal
ex-parte
communications
within
this
Court.”
The
court
rejected
these
arguments.
It
noted
that
Irion
and
Egli
had
already
been
told
that
orders
signed
by
the
clerk
are
valid,
and
that
the
Supreme
Court
had
twice
denied
mandamus
petitions
from
the
attorneys
challenging
this
practice.
The
court
also
dismissed
privilege
objections,
noting
that
questions
about
cite-checking
procedures
do
not
implicate
attorney-client
privilege
or
work
product.
Legal
Basis
for
Sanctions
The
court
grounded
its
sanctions
in
two
sources
of
authority:
Federal
Rule
of
Appellate
Procedure
38,
which
permits
awards
of
costs
and
attorney
fees
when
an
appeal
is
frivolous,
and
the
court’s
inherent
authority
to
sanction
bad-faith
conduct.
Under
Rule
38,
the
court
distinguished
between
appeals
that
are
“frivolous
as
filed,”
where
no
arguments
could
support
reversal,
and
“frivolous
as
argued,”
where
the
arguments
made
are
themselves
frivolous,
even
if
better
arguments
might
exist.
The
court
found
Whiting’s
appeal
frivolous
as
argued
because
inventing
case
law
constitutes
a
misrepresentation
of
law.
“A
fake
opinion
is
not
existing
law,
and
citation
to
a
fake
opinion
does
not
provide
a
non-frivolous
ground
for
extending,
modifying,
or
reversing
existing
law,
or
for
establishing
new
law,”
the
court
wrote,
quoting
the
Southern
District
of
New
York’s
decision
in
Mata
v.
Avianca,
Inc.,
the
2023
case
that
first
drew
widespread
attention
to
AI-generated
hallucinated
citations.
For
its
inherent
authority
sanctions,
the
court
applied
a
three-part
bad
faith
test
requiring:
(1)
a
meritless
lawsuit
or
argument,
(2)
knowledge
or
reason
to
know
the
case
was
meritless,
and
(3)
improper
motive.
The
court
found
all
three
elements
satisfied,
noting
that
“any
reasonable
attorney
should
know
that
a
case
is
meritless
if
the
only
authority
on
which
he
can
rely
is
a
figment
of
imagination.”
The
Penalty
The
sanctions
order
includes
multiple
components.
Irion
and
Egli
must
jointly
reimburse
the
appellees
for
their
full
reasonable
attorney
fees
on
appeal
across
all
three
consolidated
appeals.
They
must
also
pay
double
costs
under
28
U.S.C.
§
1920.
Most
notably,
each
attorney
must
individually
pay
$15,000
to
the
court
registry
as
punitive
sanctions.
The
court
chose
this
amount
because
the
misconduct
spanned
three
cases
and
because
“smaller
fines
have
plainly
been
inadequate
—
as
is
evidenced
by
the
continuous
stream
of
cases
raising
the
same
problems.”
The
court
also
directed
the
clerk
to
forward
a
copy
of
the
opinion
to
the
chief
judge
to
consider
disciplinary
proceedings
under
Sixth
Circuit
Local
Rule
46.
Aggravating
Factors
In
its
opinion,
the
court
identified
four
aggravating
factors
warranting
particularly
harsh
sanctions.
First,
both
attorneys
were
appealing
sanctions
orders
from
the
district
court.
“We
find
it
deeply
concerning
that
a
lawyer
would
engage
in
further
misconduct
on
appeal
from
a
finding
that
they
engaged
in
misconduct,”
the
court
observed.
Second,
both
attorneys
have
prior
discipline
for
lack
of
candor
to
the
tribunal.
Egli
was
publicly
censured
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
Tennessee
in
2017
for
lack
of
candor.
And
in
August
2025,
while
briefing
these
appeals,
Irion
was
suspended
from
the
Eastern
District
of
Tennessee
for
five
years
because
he
lied
to
the
district
court
in
the
underlying
case.
Third,
the
attorneys
defied
the
court’s
show
cause
order
and
refused
to
provide
the
requested
information,
which
the
court
characterized
as
compounding
their
violations.
Fourth,
the
responses
they
did
file
“show
a
stunning
lack
of
respect
for
this
court,
the
members
of
the
panel
and
their
staffs,
and
the
rule
of
law.”
The
court
contrasted
their
approach
with
other
attorneys
who,
when
caught
submitting
fake
cases,
“have
apologized
and
sought
forgiveness,
rightly
recognizing
the
seriousness
of
their
misconduct.”
Implications
for
the
Bar
The
court’s
opinion
includes
broader
observations
about
the
duties
of
appellate
advocates.
“Our
adversarial
system
works
only
when
lawyers
and
courts
alike
are
able
to
rely
on
one
another’s
representations,”
the
court
wrote,
quoting
the
Supreme
Court’s
decision
in
Azar
v.
Garza.
The
court
emphasized
that
citation
of
fake
cases
harms
not
only
the
court
but
also
the
reputation
of
judges
whose
names
are
falsely
invoked
as
authors
of
fabricated
opinions,
and
parties
attributed
with
fictional
conduct.
It
noted
that
the
misconduct
in
this
case
“forced
us
and
the
City
to
unnecessarily
expend
time
and
resources
on
a
case
that
should
have
been
litigated
and
resolved
straightforwardly
but
was
not.”
“By
breaching
our
trust,
we
can
no
longer
rely
on
the
representations
in
Irion’s
and
Egli’s
briefs,
harming
both
their
clients
(whose
cases
are
now
viewed
with
skepticism)
and
this
court
(who
must
now
independently
verify
everything
Irion
and
Egli
write),”
the
court
wrote.
“Finally,
Irion
and
Egli
have
sullied
the
reputation
of
our
bar,
which
now
must
litigate
under
the
cloud
of
their
conduct.”
AI
Use
Not
Directly
Determined
Although
the
court’s
show
cause
order
asked
whether
gen
AI
was
used
to
prepare
the
briefs,
Irion
and
Egli
did
not
answer
this
question.
The
court
noted
in
a
footnote
that
AI
hallucinations
“are
more
likely
to
occur
when
there
are
little
to
no
existing
authorities
available
that
clearly
satisfy
the
user’s
request
—
such
as,
for
example,
when
a
lawyer
asks
a
generative
AI
tool
to
supply
a
citation
for
an
unsupported
principle
of
law,”
quoting
a
recent
bankruptcy
court
decision.
However,
the
court
did
not
make
an
express
finding
that
AI
was
used,
instead
focusing
on
the
fact
that
the
citations
were
fabricated
regardless
of
how
they
were
generated.
“No
brief,
pleading,
motion,
or
any
other
paper
filed
in
any
court
should
contain
any
citations
—
whether
provided
by
generative
AI
or
any
other
source
—
that”
a
lawyer
has
not
personally
“read
and
verified,”
the
court
wrote,
quoting
the
California
Court
of
Appeal’s
decision
in
Noland
v.
Land
of
the
Free,
L.P.
