Although a number of federal courts have begun to address issues surrounding improper use of generative artificial intelligence in legal filings, no published Michigan opinion has tackled the issue until now. The message from the court is clear: Attorneys have a personal duty to use AI responsibly and may be subject to sanctions if they do not. In Barber v Morawa, No 374773, ___ Mich App ___, ___ NW3d ___ (June 17, 2026), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s counsel’s repeated submission of AI-fabricated and unsupported authority violated the duty of reasonable inquiry under MCR 1.109(E)(5) and supported sanctions under MCR 7.216(C)(1)(b) in addition to the mandatory sanctions under MCR 1.109(E)(6).
Facts
In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff’s counsel cited AI-fabricated authority in three separate motions and briefs. In addition to the fabricated authority, counsel cited real cases for unsupported propositions, incorrectly invoked criminal constitutional protections, and failed to timely correct a fabricated appellate citation identified by defendant (eventually filing a notice of correction that was itself full of incorrect caselaw attributions).
Violation of MCR 1.109(E)(5)
The court of appeals found that this repeated submission of AI-fabricated and unsupported authority violated the duty of reasonable inquiry required by MCR 1.109(E)(5). Under that rule, an attorney’s signature on a filing certifies that they have read the document and that, “to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the document is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law.” The reasonableness of the attorney’s inquiry is evaluated under an objective standard. Attorney Gen v Harkins, 257 Mich App 564, 576, 669 NW2d 296 (2003). Because there was no Michigan authority, the court looked to caselaw under Fed R Civ P 11 (on which MCR 1.109(E) is based) for guidance on whether the conduct violates MCR 1.109(E)(5) and determined that it did. The court opined:
Artificial intelligence may be a useful tool for legal research and drafting, but the use of such technology does not alter an attorney’s professional obligations. Lawyers remain responsible for the filings they sign and submit. They must verify that cited authorities exist, read the authorities on which they rely, and ensure that those authorities support the propositions asserted. Counsel’s repeated reliance on artificial intelligence without meaningful verification, despite having been alerted more than once that his filings contained fabricated authority, fell below that standard.
Barber, slip op at *7.
Sanctions Under MCR 1.109(E)(6) and 7.216(C)(1)(b)
Once a violation of MCR 1.109(E)(5) is found, sanctions are mandatory under MCR 1.109(E)(6). Guerrero v Smith, 280 Mich App 647, 678, 761 NW2d 723 (2008). The court of appeals also found that sanctions were authorized under MCR 7.216(C)(1)(b), which provides for sanctions when a filing is vexatious because it “was grossly lacking in the requirements of propriety, violated court rules, or grossly disregarded the requirements of a fair presentation of the issues to the court.”
Although no published Michigan decisions specifically address sanctions under MCR 1.109(E)(6) and 7.216(C)(1)(b) for this specific type of conduct, the court noted that there is precedent in other jurisdictions for monetary sanctions, striking briefs, dismissing appeals, reprimanding attorneys, and referring counsel for disciplinary review.
The court remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine actual damages and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees. The court specifically noted that all actual damages and expenses identified at the hearing are to be paid by plaintiff’s counsel personally.
Significantly, the court also directed the clerk to forward the opinion to the Attorney Grievance Commission for possible investigation.
Required Support for New Trial Motion
In a separate ruling in the Barber opinion, the court of appeals held that when a motion for a new trial is based on facts outside of the record, the motion must be supported by a notarized affidavit under MCR 2.611(D)(1). An unnotarized affidavit is invalid and does not constitute adequate support. Sherry v East Suburban Football League, 292 Mich App 23, 31, 807 NW2d 859 (2011).
In Barber, the court of appeals held that plaintiff failed to provide valid supporting affidavits and also failed to demonstrate that the alleged misconduct materially affected her substantial rights. She relied primarily on precedent related to criminal cases and identified no noncriminal authority establishing a presumption of prejudice. The court of appeals found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial or evidentiary hearing.