Mattox v. Product Innovation Research, No. 6:24-cv-235-JAR (Eastern District of Okla. (E.D. OKLA) Oct. 22, 2025)

Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Eastern District of Oklahoma (E.D. OKLA)
Decided
Oct. 22, 2025
filings ranged from summary-judgment briefing, to motions in limine, and even a sanctions motion. The pattern was not inadvertent, and it was not harmless. The Court values trust among advocates, but trust must be earned through verification. In this case, filings were trusted, but never verified, and the results s aeak for themselves.After reviewing the record, conducting two show-cause hearings, and considering the affidavits, testimony, and argument of counsel, the Court finds that the use of generative artificial intelligence in the preparation of these pleadings violated both Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Al Guidelines on Generative Al Disclosure and Certification1.1 https://www.oked.uscourts.gov/content/jason-robertson-magistrate-judgeThe integrity of judicial proceedings depends on the authenticity of what is filed.This case demonstrates the cost of neglecting that obligation.II. BACKGROUNDA.ProceduralThis case was removed from state court on July 10, 2024. Over the following year,multiple attorneys entered appearances on behalf of the plaintiffs: Gary R.Bucklesas local counsel on July 22, 2024 (Dkt. 12); T. Ryan Scott on July 29, 2024 (Dkt. 13);Sach D. Oliver, admitted pro hac vice on August 12, 2024 (Dkt. 17) and entering his appearance the next day (Dkt. 18); and Harrison A. Howie on September 16, 2024 (Dkt. 25). Robert Lambert, the state-court attorney who filed the original petition,26:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 2 of 23
The matter was then taken under advisement and is now resolved by thiswritten order.III. ANALYSISFor the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that plaintiffs' counsel violatedtheir obligation under Rule 11(b), and sanctions are warranted.A. Violations of Rule 11(b)Rule 11(b) is the federal lawyer’s first oath in action. A standing promise thatevery pleading, motion, and argument submitted to a court of the United States restson truth, law, and reason. It demands that an attorney’s signature certify notcreativity, but credibility: that the filing was formed after reasonableinquiry,grounded in fact, and supported by existing law or a non-frivolous argument for itsextension. The rule is not aspirational; it is the minimal standard of honesty thatkeeps the adversarial process tethered to reality.(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the courta 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:(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;(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;(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or,ifspecifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support76:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 7 of 23
IIIafter a reasonable opportunity for further investigation discovery; and(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.This obligation is absolute. It cannot be outsourced to technology or delegated to co-counsel. The attorney’s signature is the personal warranty of truth that anchors the judicial process. Every one of the eleven (11) pleadings at issue was signed byHarrison A. Howie. By doing so, he certified that each filing had been reviewed and verified by human judgment. The record proves otherwise. The Court’s independent review revealed twenty-eight (28) false or misleading citations: fourteen (14) fabricated cases that do not exist and fourteen (14) erroneous or misquoted authorities.At the September 11 show-cause hearing, Mr. Howie admitted that he had used ChatGPT “to make his writing more persuasive,” that the program “changed his citations,” and that he did not verify them before filing. None of the eleven (11) pleadings contained the disclosure or certification required by this Court’s AlGuidelines on Generative Al Disclosure and Certification.When defense counsel notified plaintiffs’ attorneys on July 29, 2025 (iDkt. 104 at 8) that several cited cases could not be located, Mr. Howie did not withdraw or correct his filings. Instead, he filed a Motion to Amend on August 4 (Dkt. 107) that described the false authorities as “clerical and formatting errors.” That explanation was inaccurate. The problem was not form, it was falsity.86:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 8 of 23
The Court therefore finds that Mr. Howie violated Rule 11(b)(2) and (b)(3) by presenting legal contentions not warranted by existing law and factual representations lacking evidentiary support. His conduct also contravened the duty of candor owed to the Court under Model Rule 3.3.Responsibility under Rule 11 extends to all attorneys of record. T. Ryan Scott, who remained active in hearings and discovery; Sach D. Oliver, the supervising partner admitted pro hac vice; and Gary R. Buckles, local counsel of record, a.l shared an obligation to ensure that filings presented in their names were accura te. None exercised that oversight. Each failed in their role of verification, and the cumulative neglect frustrated the administration of justice.B. Analytical Framework for AI-Generated FilingsFederal courts increasingly confront filings prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence. While such tools can enhance efficiency, they also create a new professional hazard, synthetic authority presented as precedent. No uniform standard yet governs this issue. This Court therefore articulates the following framework, grounded in Rule 11,28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the Court’s inherent authority, to guide this Court in future cases in which Al-generated hallucinations appear in filings.When a pleading containing fabricated citations or nonexistent law has beenidentified and a hearing held, this Court shall evaluate three core factors:1. Verification and Inquiry — Whether counsel conducted a reasonable, human-based verification of every cited authority before filing. A reasonable inquiry96:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 9 of 23
requires more than reliance on an automated tool; it demands independent confirmation through recognized primary legal sources. The signature of an attorney certifies human diligence, not mechanical output.2. Candor and Correction — Whether counsel promptly disclosed the u se of Aland corrected the record once inaccuracies were discovered. Candor after filingweighs heavily in mitigation; concealment or minimization aggravates theviolation. The duty of candor extends beyond the moment of signature, itcontinues for as long as the filing remains before the Court.3. Accountability and Supervision — Whether supervising or associatedattorneys exercised oversight consistent with Model Rules 5.1 and5.3 andwhether firm-level safeguards existed to prevent recurrence. Theinquiryextends beyond the drafter to the institutional culture that permittedunverified authority to reach the docket. A firm’s silence or absence of policydoes not immunize it; it implicates it.These factors balance culpability against mitigation and aim to deter repetitionrather than destroy reputation. They also provide a path for future litigants in thisCourt when confronting Al-related misconduct, recognizing that the issue implicatesthe ethical foundations of advocacy itself.C.Application of the Framework1.Verification and InquiryMr.Howie’s admission that he relied on ChatGPT without verifying itscitations demonstrates the total absence of human inquiry. Fourteen (14) fabricated106:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 10 of 23
cases and fourteen (14) misquoted authorities appeared across eleven (11) pleadings:All signed by him and filed without certification. The volume and repetitionof theseerrors show not inadvertence but systemic neglect. By contrast, Mr. Scottand Mr.Oliver did not draft the pleadings but remained counsel of record and continued torely on them in hearings, depositions, and conferences. Their failure to examine orquestion the filings before advocacy reflects a secondary lapse of verificationMr. Buckles, as local counsel, admitted he never reviewed the pleadings andentered his appearance merely “as a favor.” His abdication eliminated the local checkRule 11 is designed to provide.Collectively, the absence of verification at every level satisfies the first factorand represents the core breach.2. Candor and CorrectionWhen defense counsel raised the issue on July 29, 2025, plaintiffs’ attorneysdid not investigate or correct the record. Their Motion to Amend of August 4 (Dkt.107) characterized the false citations as “clerical.” That assertion misled the Courtand opposing counsel. At the show-cause hearing, Mr. Howie admitted the use ofChatGPT only after direct questioning. No earlier disclosure was made. Mr. Scott andMr. Oliver likewise made no corrective filing despite knowing the Court wasinvestigating. The duty of candor was breached both before and after the Court’sintervention.116:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 11 of 23
3. Accountability and SupervisionThe Oliver Law Firm, which referred the case to Mr. Howie, maintained activeinvolvement in discovery and strategy but had no policy governing Al use for casesreferred to outside counsel and apparently conducted no review of pleadings. Itsinattention enabled the misconduct.Local counsel Gary R. Buckles provided no supervision and failedeven toattend the first show-cause hearing, requiring a second order compelling hisappearance. Such passivity reflects a misunderstanding of the role of localcounsel,which is fiduciary, not ceremonial.The third factor therefore weighs heavily in favor of sanctions.D. Findings under the FrameworkAll three factors (verification, candor, and accountability) are met. Eachdemonstrates a breach of the attorney’s fundamental duty of reasonable inquiry andhonesty to the tribunal.The Court does not find that Mr. Howie acted with intent to deceiveRule 11does not require intent; it requires responsibility. An attorney who signs eleven (11)pleadings containing fabricated authority, after using an undisclosed Al program andmaking no effort to verify a single citation, acts with reckless disregard for the truth.Recklessness in this context is not a lapse of diligence; it is the conscious decisión toproceed in the absence of knowledge. Repetition across eleven (11) pleadingsmagnifies that recklessness and transforms neglect into misconduct.126:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 12 of 23
The same reasoning applies, though to a lesser extent, to the supervisory and associated counsel. Their continued participation without inquiry or correction reflected indifference to accuracy once the falsity was known. Each owed the Court, and the profession, more than silence.Accordingly, the Court concludes that plaintiffs’ counsel collectivelyviolatedRule 11(b). Their conduct, though not bom of deceit, displayed a reckless disregard for the obligation to ensure that what is filed in federal court is true, verified, and worthy of the public trust. Sanctions are therefore warranted both to redress thespecific harm and to deter recurrence.IV.SANCTIONSFor guidance, the Court looks to other cases that have sanctioned attorneys for similar conduct. In nearly all cases, courts have imposed monetary sanctions ranging from $1,500 to $15,000. See e.g.f Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc.. 348 F.R.D. 48S , 499 (D.Wyo. 2025) ($3,000 fine for the drafter of the brief with fake cases and $1,000 for other attorneys who signed, but did not draft, the brief); United States v. Haves. No.Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.. No. 23-CV-281, 2024 WL 4882651 at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024) ($2,000 fine); Mid Cent. Operating Eng'rs Health & WelfareFund v. Hoosiervac LLC. No. 24-CV-326, 2025 WL 574234 at *2-3 (S.D. Ind 2025 (recommending $15,000 fine); Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F.Supp.3d Feb. 21,443, 459(S.D.N.Y. 2023) ($5,000 fine for citing fake cases and then submitting AI-generated fake excerpts from the fake cases).136:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 13 of 23
it can never excuse one. The sanction must therefore speak not only to thelawyersbefore this Court, but to every lawyer tempted to trade diligence for speed. The ruleis simple and enduring: truth is not negotiable, and the signature on a pleading stillmeans something.A. Application of Sanctions to Individual CounselWhen this Court first considered appropriate monetary sanctions, it 1ooked torecent cases addressing the submission of Al-generated or fabricated authorities. InWadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489 (D. Wyo. 2025), fines reached $3,000 perdrafter and $1,000 per signer. In Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y.2023), the sanction was $5,000 for counsel who submitted six (6) fictitious citations.Those cases involved one or two pleadings. Here, the misconduct spanned eleven (11)pleadings and twenty-eight (28) false or misleading citations: fourteen (14)fabricated, and fourteen (14) erroneous or misquoted.Based on that scope, the Court initially contemplated fines in the rangebetween $10,000 and $15,000 for the drafter and proportionate amounts for theothers. However, the Court also heard testimony and observed demeanor at twohearings. Every attorney appeared (eventually), admitted the wrongdoing,acceptedresponsibility, and fell upon the mercy of the Court. None denied, deflected, orexcused. Their contrition was genuine and complete.Rule Il’s purpose is deterrence, not destruction. The public reprimands issuedin this Order, together with joint restitution of attorney’s fees and the permanent156:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 15 of 23
record of these findings, will deter far more effectively than excessive fines. The Court therefore exercises restraint and imposes reduced but meaningful sanctions , $2,000, calibrated to each attorney’s degree of responsibility. These amounts ($3,000edibilityand $1,000) stand as tangible reminders that candor is the currency of cr before this Court.Harrison A. Howie — Signing and Drafting AttorneyMr. Howie drafted and signed every pleading at issue. By his own admission, he used ChatGPT to “make his writing more persuasive,” allowed it to alter citations, and filed the resulting briefs without verification. His actions were reckless but not deceitful.At the September 11 hearing, he accepted full responsibility and fell upon the mercy of the Court. He has demonstrated sincere remorse. The Court credits his candor. While his conduct represented a profound failure of professional duty, it also presents a rare opportunity for public correction rather than professional ruin.referral.Monetary Sanction: $3,000Public Reprimand: Issued by this OrderBar Referral: None. The Court finds no intentional deception warrantingContinued Representation: Mr. Howie may remain as counsel of record, subject to the continuing duty to verify all future filings personally and to certify compliance with this Order.T. Ryan Scott — Referring Counsel and Active ParticipantMr. Scott did not draft or sign the defective pleadings but remained counsel of record and relied upon them throughout the case. His failure to question their accuracy reflected neglect of oversight, not malice. At the hearing he admitted that166:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 16 of 23
omission, accepted fault, and has since instituted firm policies requiring verification of all Al-assisted filings.The Court initially considered a sanction of $4,000 to $5,000 based on his supervisory role, but his candid acknowledgment of responsibility and correctiveaction warrant mitigation.Monetary Sanction: $2,000 Public Reprimand: Issued by this OrderBar Referral: None. This sanction reflects his secondary role while reaffirming that supervision is a duty, not a courtesy.Sach D. Oliver — Managing Partner (pro hac vice)As managing partner, Mr. Oliver authorized the referral to Mr. Hcwle and remained counsel of record. He had no policy governing Al use by associated counsel and conducted no independent review of filings submitted in his firm’s name. That absence of supervision allowed unverified authorities to reach the docket.At the October 14 hearing, Mr. Oliver accepted full accountability and pledged immediate reforms within his firm. The Court originally considered a sanction of $2,500 to $3,000 but, in light of his honest testimony and remedial steps, concludes that a reduced penalty will adequately deter recurrence.Monetary Sanction: $1,000Public Reprimand: Issued by this OrderBar Referral: None. The sanction recognizes limited direct involvement yet underscores that firm leaders remain guardians of their name and their firm’sreputation on every pleading.176:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 17 of 23
attorney’s fees restores the balance Rule 11 demands: truth verified, accountability imposed, and integrity reaffirmed.All counsel are admonished that the trust restored today must be maintained tomorrow. The record of this Order will stand as both warning and witness that verification is not optional, and that mercy in this Court is always tethered to responsibility.B. Remedial Correction of the RecordThe purpose of sanctions under Rule 11 is not only to deter future misconduct but also to restore the integrity of the record already before the Court. Pleadings that rely upon fabricated or erroneous authorities cannot remain on the docket. They misstate the law, distort the issues, and leave the Court to build upon a foundation that no longer exists.Accordingly, all filings identified in this Order as containing fabricated or inaccurate citations are hereby STRICKEN from the record. This includes the following docket entries: 61, 72, 78, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95,101 and 102.Within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file verifiedamended pleadings that show as follows:1. drafted and reviewed by human counsel without the use of generativeartificial intelligence tools to produce or alter text or citations, except as expressly permitted by this Court’s Al Guidelines on Artificial IntelligenceDisclosure and Certification;196:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 19 of 23
2. contain only accurate and verifiable authorities; and,3. are accompanied by a signed Certification of Verification confirming that counsel personally reviewed each cited case, statute, or exhibit for accuracy. The Certification shall state:“I certify that I personally reviewed each citation and authority referenced in this pleading and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all citations are genuine and accurately reflect the law as of the date of filing. This filing complies with the requiremen ts of the Court’s Al Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence Disclosure and Certification.”esult inFailure to file verified pleadings within the sixty-day period will i dismissal of those claims without further notice.This directive is restorative. The record must reflect truth before the Court!may apply law. The Federal Rules presuppose a foundation of accuracy, arid where!that foundation has been compromised, the only remedy is reconstruction. The Court therefore wipes the slate clean, in the service of veracity. Having restored the integrity of the record, the Court now turns to the question of cost, specifically, the burden unjustly borne by opposing counsel in responding to pleadings that rio longer exist.C. Award of Attorney’s Fees and CostsUnder Rule 11(c)(4), a sanction "may include ... an order directing pairment tothe movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.” The Court finds that the defendants’ counsel incurred206:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 20 of 23
substantial expense responding to the fabricated filings and addressing the procedural disruption that followed.The Affidavit of Theresa N. Hill, lead counsel for defendants Cosway Company,Inc. and Product Innovations Research, LLC, establishes that her firm,Rhodes,Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable, PLLC, expended $23,423.50 in attorney fees and $72.40 in costs, for a total of $23,495.90, in connection with these pleadings and the resulting hearings. The Court finds these fees and expenses reasonable and directly caused by the violations identified in this Order.Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 11(c)(4), the Court orders joint and several reimbursement of these amounts by the Howie Law Firm and the Oliver Law Firm, in equal shares. Each firm shall remit $11,747.95 to defense counsel within thirty (30) days of this Order. This obligation is separate from the individual monetary sanctions imposed above and shall not be borne by local counsel Gary R. Buckles.The Court directs defense counsel to file a short notice of compliance once payment is received.The purpose of these sanctions is not punitive but restorative: to restore the meaning of local appearance and to reinforce the Court’s expectation that every lawyer of record, regardless of title, stands as both advocate and guarantor of integrity. The Court expects compliance not because it demands perfection, but because the justice system cannot function without verification.216:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 21 of 23
V. CONCLUSIONThe Court has imposed sanctions to restore, not to ruin. The aim of this ruling isnot punishment for its own sake, but the reaffirmation of professional honor.All counsel have appeared, accepted responsibility, and sought mercy. The Courthas answered with proportion, acknowledging their contrition while ensuringaccountability endures. The combination of public reprimand, restitution, andmonetary penalty satisfies the Rule 11 standard of deterrence and reaffirmsthat thepractice of law is an act of trust.The lesson is neither new nor novel. The practice of law has never been aboutconvenience; it has always demanded courage. The quiet, disciplined courageto standfor what is right when compromise would be easier. Marcus Aurelius wroteI “If it isnot right, do not do it; if it is not true, do not say it.” Meditations bk. 12, § 17 (GregoryHays trans., Modern Library ed. 2002). That simple maxim captures theheart ofadvocacy: the moral courage to write, to argue, and to sign only what truth candefend.It takes courage to put a word, a sentence, a phrase to paper in defense of another.It takes courage to sign one’s name beneath arguments that carry the weight ofjustice. Machines can assemble words, but they cannot believe in them. They canprocess information, but they cannot possess conviction.The Court does not fear progress. It fears abdication. When lawyers tradereflection for automation, they surrender the very quality that makes their words226:24-cv-00235-JAR Document 148 Filed in ED/OK on 10/22/25 Page 22 of 23
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access