Ringer v. Bank of America, N.A. (2025)

Case details
Full caption
Tiffany Regina Ringer v. Bank of America, N.A.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2025
Majority
Justin S. Anand (J.) (unanimous Court)
Ringer v. Bank of America, N.A., --- F.Supp.3d ---- (2025) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 3765431Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court,N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.Tiffany Regina RINGER, Plaintiff,v.BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant.CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-3959-SEG-JSA|Signed December 30, 2025Attorneys and Law FirmsTiffany Regina Ringer, Villa Rica, GA, Pro Se.Danny Patterson Jr., Jennifer R. Burbine, McGuireWoodsLLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.ORDERSARAH E. GERAGHTY, United States District Judge*1 This case is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge'sNon-Final Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc.14.) The Magistrate Judge recommends the imposition ofsanctions against Defendant's attorney, Danny Patterson,Jr. of the McGuireWoods LLP law firm, for negligentlysubmitting inaccurate citations to the Court. No objectionshave been filed in response to the Magistrate Judge's R&R.In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72 of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has reviewed theMagistrate Judge's R&R for clear error and finds none.The Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R.(Doc. 14.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)and the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, the Court issuesthe following sanctions for negligently submitting inaccuratecitations to the Court:1. The Magistrate Judge's findings, naming Mr. Pattersonand his law firm (Doc. 14), shall be accessibleon the Court's public docket. Additionally, theCourt DIRECTS the Clerk to send this orderand the Magistrate Judge's Order and Report andRecommendation of December 4, 2025, for submissionto the official case reporter. This step adds generaldeterrent value and ensures that future litigants, courts,and bar authorities have access to this information.2. The Court DIRECTS Mr. Patterson, within 21 days ofthis order, to pay the amount of $1,500 to the registryof the Court. Any check should include in the memofield a reference to the docket number of this case andthe document number of this order. This penalty addsdeterrent value and is a partial remedy for the taxpayerresources that have been expended by the Court inaddressing this matter.3. Should Mr. Patterson remain on this case, supervisorycounsel must maintain an appearance and co-sign allpapers in this case. Further, to the extent not alreadyprovided, an experienced paralegal or legal assistantmust be provided to Mr. Patterson to cite check all legaland factual citations in all submissions in this case. Thisrequirement is to assure the parties and the Court thatDefendant's filings have an appropriate basis in law andfact.After the issuance of the R&R, and in conformance with theMagistrate Judge's order, the McGuireWoods LLP law firmfiled a response to the R&R along with the sworn declarationof the firm's managing partner, J. Tracy Walker IV. (Doc.19, Doc. 19-1.) In his declaration, Mr. Walker describesthe circumstances that led to the citation errors and thecomprehensive measures his firm has undertaken to preventrecurrence of such errors. The Court notes and appreciatesthe candor and professionalism with which Mr. Walker,Mr. Patterson, and the firm have responded to the eventsdiscussed in the R&R. It is evident from the declarationsthat the matter has been taken seriously and that there areprocedures in place to reasonably ensure accurate factual andlegal citations in submissions to the Court going forward.Having consulted with the Magistrate Judge and with hisagreement, the undersigned is satisfied that no further actionsare warranted other than as expressed herein.*2 SO ORDERED this 30th day of December, 2025.ORDER AND NON-FINAL REPORTAND RECOMMENDATION ONISSUE OF ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
Ringer v. Bank of America, N.A., --- F.Supp.3d ---- (2025) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2JUSTIN S. ANAND, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATEJUDGEThis matter is before the Court on its Order to Show Cause[10], dated November 6, 2025, which directed Defendant'scounsel to explain numerous citation inaccuracies inDefendant's Memorandum of Law in support of its Motionto Dismiss, and to show cause why sanctions should notimposed. Defendant in this case is represented by DannyPatterson, Jr. of the McGuire Woods LLP law firm (“Counsel”or “Mr. Patterson”). Counsel responded to the Court's Order toShow Cause on November 25, 2025 [12], along with a swornDeclaration [12-1].I. FINDINGS OF FACTMr. Patterson admits to all of the inaccuracies identified bythe Court in its Order to Show Cause. The Court thereforefinds, as unopposed, that Defendant's Memorandum of Lawin Support of its Motion to Dismiss contained all of thenumerous quotation and citation errors as detailed morespecifically in the Order to Show Cause [10].Mr. Patterson, however, denies that these errors resultedfrom the use of any AI-assisted software tools (which Mr.Patterson denies using at all). Instead, Mr. Patterson statesthat the errors resulted from his lack of care in transposinghis manual research notes about cases into the brief.According to Mr. Patterson, through haste and lack of double-checking citations, various phrases that were simply his ownparaphrasing of cases or other authorities were mistakenlypresented to the Court as verbatim quotations. Mr. Pattersonassures the Court that these errors were unintentional, andthat corrective measures are being undertaken in this andother cases to prevent such errors going forward. Amongother things, Mr. Patterson states that he will be changing hismethodology of paraphrasing cases in manual notes and alsowill be using a paralegal to cite-check citations.The Court has considered Mr. Patterson's sworn declarationand in the totality of the circumstances finds that the quotationand citation errors were unintentional and were the result ofmere carelessness. After all, as the Court noted in the Orderto Show Cause itself, the errors were mostly immaterial tothe issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss, and the citationswere mostly legally accurate. As the Court explained in itsOrder and Report and Recommendation [8] on the Motion toDismiss, Plaintiff's Complaint clearly fails to state a claim.There was little need or incentive to fabricate citations to theCourt to demonstrate such plain deficiencies, and the Court isassured that Mr. Patterson did not intend to do so.Although any lack of use of ChatGPT or other generativeAI-assisted technology is not exonerating, the Court alsoaccepts Mr. Patterson's denials in those regards. The casesmiscited in the Memorandum of Law were not “hallucinated”and, as noted above, mostly contained language similar insubstance to Defendant's citations. While these errors couldhave been generated by AI, they are also consistent with Mr.Patterson's explanations. In the end, however, the lack of duecare in submitting materials to the Court remains the principalproblem, with or without the use of AI.II. DISCUSSION*3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), along with otherlegal, ethical and professional obligations on attorneys (andin some cases unrepresented parties), “imposes an objectivestandard of reasonable inquiry which does not mandate afinding of bad faith.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.32, 47, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (citationsomitted). In other words, negligence that leads to evenunintentional false quotations, citations or inaccurate factualor legal assertions can be serious violations and are subject todiscipline or other consequences. In this case, Mr. Pattersondoes not dispute, and the Court simply must find, that thesubmission of Defendant's Memorandum of Law in supportof its Motion to Dismiss violated Rule 11 and other relatedobligations, for all of the reasons explained in more detail inthe Order to Show Cause.As other courts have explained, even where lawyers orunrepresented parties:accept responsibility and apologizeprofusely, much damage is done.The opposing party expends resourcesidentifying and exposing thefabrication; the court spends timereviewing materials, holding hearings,deliberating about sanctions, andexplaining its ruling; the substanceof the case is delayed; and publicconfidence about the trustworthinessof legal proceedings may bediminished.
Ringer v. Bank of America, N.A., --- F.Supp.3d ---- (2025) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3Johnson v. Dunn, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1257 (N.D. Ala.2025).The Court does not relish recommending sanctions,particularly for unintentional errors. But the Courtmust, considering all circumstances, assess sanctions orconsequences if necessary to achieve the ends of justice, and/or to deter future violations by the specific counsel or lawfirm responsible in that case or other lawyers, firms, andunrepresented parties more generally.In this case, the opposing party expended no resources onthis issue, as Plaintiff is pro se and did not identify theinaccuracies. But that counsel was careless in a case with apro se adversary is, if anything, an aggravating factor. Prose parties are more likely to already perceive that the legalsystem is not equally available to them, that lawyers takeadvantage of their unrepresented status, and that Courts aremore prone to believe or favor lawyers over them. Theseperceptions are damaging to the credibility and image ofthe judicial system, and they are worsened where attorneysare caught making false assertions or cutting corners inopposing a pro se case. Perhaps most concerningly, citationinaccuracies are far less likely to be uncovered by a pro seadversary than by an opposing lawyer. That there is a greaterlikelihood of getting away with carelessness (or worse) ina pro se case means, for deterrent purposes, that greaterconsequences must be imposed where such violations areexposed.Moreover, the lack of resources expended by Plaintiff inthis case simply means that the Court bore the brunt of thetime and effort to double, triple and quadruple check thecitations at issue, and undertake legal research on this sideissue unrelated to the merits. This was to the detriment of theprompt adjudication of the merits of this case as well as themany other cases pending before the Court.Unfortunately, the age of artificial intelligence has greatlyincreased the prevalence of false legal and factual assertionsin legal submissions. This is a tremendous threat, as it erodesconfidence in the judicial system and bogs the Courts andpractitioners down in policing citations to a far greater extentthan had previously been the case. AI may not ultimately havebeen at the core of the errors submitted here. But Courts musttake careless citation errors even more seriously in the currentenvironment to send the necessary message of deterrence tothe legal community and unrepresented parties.Another aggravating factor that the Court considers is thelarge number of false citations in this case, which were laidout in detail in the Order to Show Cause [10]. This was nota case of a typographical-type error or a couple of smallinaccuracies. The Court identified numerous problems inseveral case citations, and at least one lengthy supposed blockquotation from a statute that was almost entirely paraphrased.*4 On the other hand, while the lack of bad faith orintent is not exonerating, it remains obviously relevant tomitigate the severity of any negligence. Also mitigating onthe facts of this case is that the quotation and citation errorswere mostly immaterial to the legal merits of the argumentspresented to the Court.1 The Court also considers that Mr.Patterson is a relatively new, non-partner employee of alarge law firm, McGuire Woods, and has already faced andmay face additional repercussions at the firm for this issuebeing raised by the Court. Mr. Patterson indicates that hehas already been at least temporarily relieved of other caseresponsibilities while these issues are being resolved, and isbeing subjected to additional review and oversight. Thoseare not light consequences for a new employee and mid-career lawyer. Specific deterrence as to Mr. Patterson andeven general deterrence as to lawyers in similar situationsat other large firms is already at least partially achieved bythe public reprimand effect of the combination of the Court'sOrder to Show Cause and this Report and Recommendation.Finally, Mr. Patterson attests that he has never previously beensanctioned or disciplined or accused in any similar fashionof violations. The Court has corroborated these statementsinsofar as a search in the Westlaw databases and the recordsof public discipline on the State Bar of Georgia website revealno prior issues.Mr. Patterson urges the Court to impose no consequencesbeyond the personal embarrassment and professional impactsalready resulting from the Order to Show Cause. As explainedabove, the Court understands that the Order to Show Causeitself has likely created reputation and other problems forMr. Patterson with his current employer and recognizes thatthese are serious consequences with remedial and deterrenteffects. The Court credits Mr. Patterson's assurances they hewill engage in more care going forward and finds that he hasbeen personally deterred from violations in this and in futurecases.But while the Court does not wish to imposeadditional consequences, the principles of general deterrence
Ringer v. Bank of America, N.A., --- F.Supp.3d ---- (2025) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4unfortunately require that it do so. In other words, the Courtmust be concerned with the message sent to other lawyers,firms and non-represented parties as to the consequences ofcutting corners, by using tools such as ChatGPT or even AImodules offered by reputable legal research databases withoutadequate care, or otherwise failing to verify the accuracy ofcitations and assertions in legal filings. Allowing this issue topass with nothing more than an Order to Show Cause mightfail to send that message. Nevertheless, the consequencesrecommended by the Court are significantly less than whatthey would have been absent the indications of professionaland employer-based repercussions that have already impactedand may continue to impact Mr. Patterson.The Court assesses the following to be adequate sanctionsas to Mr. Patterson, subject to the final determination by theDistrict Judge:1. That, unlike the anonymized language in the Order to ShowCause, the Court's findings be stated in a public and accessibleReport and Recommendation and Order that expressly namesMr. Patterson and his law firm, and that these documentsbe submitted to publication in the official case reporter.This step adds general deterrent value, and helps ensure, inthe hopefully unlikely event of repeated future violationsspecifically by Mr. Patterson or McGuire Woods, LLP, thatfuture case participants, courts, and bar authorities will haveaccess to this information.*5 2. That Mr. Patterson, within twenty-one (21) daysof any Order adopting or modifying this Report andRecommendation (if any), pay the amount of $1,500 to theregistry of the Court.2 This penalty adds deterrent value,and is at least a partial remedy in recognition of the taxpayerresources that have been expended by the Court in addressingthis matter.3. Mr. Patterson does not need to be disqualified from thiscase on the following conditions: that supervisory counselmaintain an appearance and co-sign all papers in this casegoing forward, and, to the extent not already being provided,that an experienced paralegal or legal assistant be provided toMr. Patterson to cite check all legal and factual citations in allsubmissions in this case.Finally, however, the Court has some lingering hesitationsbefore entirely closing this matter as to McGuire Woods,LLP (the “Firm”). Indeed, while the Court appreciates andbelieves Mr. Patterson's personal assurances of regret andembarrassment, the Court was surprised not to hear fromthe Firm as to what procedures and training it employs, andwhat resources it provides to support its lawyers in reasonablyensuring the accuracy of all legal and factual citations. Afterall, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(1) applies not justto the specific lawyer who signs an offending paper but alsoto his or her law firm.In particular, the undersigned was surprised that a large lawfirm such as McGuire Woods did not already have paralegals,more junior lawyers, or other staff cite-checking submissions,and that an Order to Show Cause from a federal judge wasrequired for such a commonplace step to be implemented inthis case. Mr. Patterson's declaration states that the errors hereoccurred in the context of performing these tasks alone whilejuggling multiple and concurrent filing deadlines in variouscases. The Court was left wanting to hear more from the Firmitself as to what it does to help its lawyers and reasonablyassure that they meet their obligations to the Court.Thus, while the above recommendations close this matterin the undersigned's view as to Mr. Patterson individually,the Court further ORDERS that the Firm, by December31, 2025, provide a sworn statement as to what training,oversight, procedures and resources it provides to or requiresof individual lawyers, or will provide and require goingforward, to reasonably ensure accurate factual and legalcitations in submissions to the Court, and any other mattersthat the Firm wishes to explain.III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONThe Court RECOMMENDS the imposition of sanctionsagainst Mr. Patterson as set forth above for negligentlysubmitting inaccurate citations to the Court, and ORDERSMcGuire Woods, LLP to submit a supplemental statement asset forth above.IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED this 4th dayof December, 2025.All Citations--- F.Supp.3d ----, 2025 WL 3765431
Ringer v. Bank of America, N.A., --- F.Supp.3d ---- (2025) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5Footnotes1One exception to the legal immateriality of the citations is that, as explained in the Order to Show Cause [10]at 5–7, certain quotations in the Memorandum of Law overstated the specific need for a petition to quiet titleto include “sworn,” “notarized” or “attested to” statements in support. These assertions were not supportedby the authorities cited. Nevertheless, as explained in its Order and Report and Recommendation [8] on theMotion to Dismiss, the Court ultimately agreed with Defendant that the Complaint as originally pleaded failedto state a claim for the quiet title remedy even without any “attestation” or “notarization” requirement.2Any check should include in the memo field a reference to the docket number of this case and the specificnumber of the Order adopting or modifying this Report and Recommendation (if any).End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
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