Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
Fuller v. School
(2026)
Case details
Full caption
Jessica Fuller v. Hyde School, et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Maine (ME)
Court
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Decided
2026
Disposition
Dismissed
Majority
United (Justice)
1
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
DISTRICT
OF
MAINE
JESSICA
FULLER
,
Plaintiff,
v
.
HYDE
SCHOOL,
et
al.
,
Defendant
s
.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:
25
-cv-
00354
-
SDN
ORDER
IMP
O
SING
SANCTIONS
This
issue
comes
before
the
Court
on
the
matter
of
whether
Plaintiff’s
counsel,
Attorney
Kelly
Guagenty,
should
be
sanctioned
for
submitting
two
filings
to
the
Court
which
used
artificial
intelligence
(“AI”)
to
generate
erroneous
legal
citations.
See
ECF
Nos.
25,
29.
On
April
14,
2026,
the
Court
issued
a
show
cause
order
to
Attorney
Guagenty
asking
why
she
should
not
be
sanctioned
for
making
false
statements
of
fact
or
law
to
the
Court.
ECF
No.
38.
After
considering
the
record,
applicable
law,
and
counsel’s
response
to
the
Court’s
show
cause
order,
ECF
No.
39,
the
Court
determines
it
is
appropriate
to
impose
non
-
monetary
sanction
s.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
Jessica
Fuller
brought
claims
against
her
former
school,
the
Hyde
School
,
and
other
institutional
defendants
alle
ging
child
exploitation
of
students
.
See
ECF
No.
1.
On
October
7,
2025,
Defendants
moved
to
dismiss
the
complaint
for
failure
to
state
a
claim.
ECF
No.
20.
Plaintiff
responded
in
opposition
on
November
25,
2025
.
ECF
No.
2
5
(“the
Response”)
.
In
their
reply,
Defendants
asserted
the
Response
contained
inaccurate,
misleading,
and
potentially
fabricated
sources.
See
ECF
No.
26
at
2
–
6.
Case
2:25-cv-00354-SDN
Document
40
Filed
05/05/26
Page
1
of
6
PageID
#:
<pageID>
2
Plaintiff
subsequently
filed
a
“Notice
of
Errata”
attempting
to
address
these
concerns
but
instead
introduced
additional
inaccuracies
in
the
challenged
citations.
See
ECF
No.
29
.
Defendants
objected
to
the
Notice
of
Errata
.
ECF
No.
30
.
After
independently
review
ing
the
sources
cited
in
both
the
Response
and
the
Notice
of
Errata
,
the
Court
found
that
several
cases
were
cited
for
unsupported
propositions;
some
quoted
language
could
not
be
located
in
the
cited
source
s;
and
other
quotations
contained
inaccurate
pincites
,
all
cons
istent
with
Defendants’
objections.
On
March
4
,
2026,
Plaintiff’s
counsel
responded
to
Defendants’
objection
to
the
Notice
of
Errata
,
seeking
to
clarify
the
issues
in
the
two
filings.
ECF
No.
36.
She
explained
that
the
inaccuracies
were
not
fabrications
and
were
not
intended
to
mislead
the
Court
but
instead
resulted
from
an
“
admitted
ly
poorly
overseen”
drafting
process
which
involved
multiple
attorneys
and
drafts
.
Id.
at
3.
In
April
2026
,
the
Court
issued
an
order
to
show
cause
directing
counsel
to
explain
why
she
should
not
be
sanctioned
for
making
false
statements
of
law
or
fact
to
the
Court.
ECF
No.
38.
She
responded
on
April
28,
2026
,
apologizin
g
to
the
Court
and
accepting
responsibility
for
the
errors
.
ECF
No.
39.
For
the
first
time,
she
disclosed
that
she
or
someone
on
her
team
had
used
AI
—
either
Claude
or
ChatGPT
—
in
the
drafting
process.
Id.
at
2.
She
also
acknowledged
that
she
had
not
conduct
ed
a
line
-
by
-
line
citation
check.
Id.
She
further
stated
she
had
apologized
to
her
client,
retained
new
local
counsel
and
additional
firm
oversight
for
her
filings,
implemented
new
firm
policies
on
A
I
use
and
dis
closure,
and
registered
for
a
continuing
legal
education
(“CLE”)
program
on
AI
on
April
29,
2026
.
I
d.
a
t
7
–8.
She
also
indicated
a
willingness
to
file
an
amended
opposition
to
Defendants’
motion
to
dismiss.
Id.
at
10.
Case
2:25-cv-00354-SDN
Document
40
Filed
05/05/26
Page
2
of
6
PageID
#:
<pageID>
3
ANALYSIS
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
11
establishes
the
standard
that
attorneys
and
parties
must
meet
when
filing
documents
in
federal
court.
Rule
11(b)(2)
requires
the
attorney
filing
any
litigation
document
to
certify
“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.”
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
11(b)(2).
F
iling
papers
“without
taking
the
necessary
care
in
their
preparation”
is
an
“
abuse
of
the
judicial
system”
subject
to
Rule
11
sanction
s
.
Cooter
&
Gell
v.
Hartmarx
Corp.
,
496
U.S.
384,
398
(1990).
Rule
11
creates
an
incentive
for
attorneys
“
to
stop,
think
and
investigate
more
carefully
before
serving
and
filing
papers
,”
i
d.
,
which
i
n
practice
me
ans
an
attorney
must,
at
a
minimum,
read
and
“
thereby
confirm
the
existence
and
validity
of,
the
legal
authorities
on
which
they
rely
,
”
Park
v.
Kim
,
91
F.4th
610,
615
(2d
Cir.
2024)
.
When
Rule
11
is
violated,
the
C
ourt
may
consider
sanctions
either
sua
sponte
or
on
motion.
See
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
11(c)(2)
–
(3).
Any
sanction
“must
be
limited
to
what
suffices
to
deter
repetition
of
the
conduct
or
comparable
conduct
by
others
similarly
situated.”
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
11(c)(4).
The
determination
of
whether
to
impose
sanctions
is
conducted
under
an
“objective
standard
of
reasonableness”
and
“based
upon
what
was
reasonable
at
the
time
the
attorney
acted.”
Cruz
v.
Savage
,
896
F.2d
626,
631
(1st
Cir.
1990)
.
The
misuse
of
generative
AI
in
litigation
poses
particular
risks
to
the
integrity
of
the
judicial
process,
as
illustrated
in
the
seminal
federal
case
on
this
topic
.
See
Mata
v
.
Avianca,
Inc
.
,
678
F.
Supp.
3d
443
(S.D.N.Y.
2023).
When
unverified,
AI
-
generated
citations
are
submitted,
the
opposing
party
must
expend
time
and
resources
to
uncover
the
errors,
the
Court
must
divert
attention
from
other
matters
to
verify
fictitious
authorities,
and
clients
may
be
deprived
of
arguments
grounded
in
real
precedent
.
False
attributions
to
parties
can
harm
Case
2:25-cv-00354-SDN
Document
40
Filed
05/05/26
Page
3
of
6
PageID
#:
<pageID>
4
reputations
and
erode
public
confidence
in
the
legal
system,
and
repeated
incidents
risk
fostering
cynicism
about
both
the
legal
profession
and
the
judiciary.
At
a
time
when
public
confidence
in
the
judiciary
is
increasingly
fragile,
these
lapses
do
more
than
merely
delay
proceedings;
they
foster
a
corrosive
cynicism
toward
the
legal
profession
and
the
rule
of
law.
Furthermore,
such
conduct
creates
the
risk
that
future
litigants
may
disingenuously
question
the
authenticity
of
genuine
rulings,
thereby
underm
ining
the
finality
of
judicial
decisions.
Ultimately,
while
technology
may
evolve,
the
attorney’s
nondelegable
duty
to
exercise
independent
professional
judgment
and
verify
all
representations
made
to
the
tribunal
remains
a
cornerstone
of
our
legal
system
—
one
that
cannot
be
sacrificed
to
the
conve
nience
of
automation.
All
of
those
issues
are
at
play
here
.
Counsel
relied
on
generative
AI
to
draft
a
filing
that
included
inaccurate
case
citations
and
descriptions,
and
those
inaccuracies
were
presented
to
the
Court
as
though
they
reflected
genuine
legal
authorities.
Although
AI
can
be
a
useful
aid
in
research
a
nd
drafting,
its
use
does
not
diminish
an
attorney’s
nondelegable
duties
of
diligence,
candor,
and
reasonable
inquiry
under
Rule
11.
An
attorney
who
chooses
to
use
such
tools
must
ensure
that
every
citation
and
quoted
passage
has
been
independently
confirmed
using
reliable
legal
sources,
and
that
any
limitations
of
AI
tools
are
fully
understood
and
accounted
for.
Here,
the
Court
finds
that
several
specific
aspects
of
counsel
’s
conduct
did
not
satisfy
the
standard
required
by
Rule
11.
She
relied
on
generative
AI
to
produce
case
citations
and
descriptions
but
did
not
confirm
that
those
authorities
existed
or
accurately
stated
the
law
before
filing.
After
Defendants
identified
significant
errors
in
the
original
filing,
she
did
not
promptly
withdraw
or
correct
it,
and
it
remains
on
the
docket.
In
her
Notice
of
Errata,
she
repeated
and
extended
some
of
the
same
problems
instead
of
fully
remedying
them.
She
has
not
Case
2:25-cv-00354-SDN
Document
40
Filed
05/05/26
Page
4
of
6
PageID
#:
<pageID>
5
shown
that
she
reimbursed
her
client
for
time
spent
on
the
faulty
filings.
S
he
did
not
candidly
disclose
her
use
of
AI
in
her
initial
filings
and
did
so
only
after
the
Court
issued
a
show
cause
order,
further
frustrating
the
Court’s
ability
to
understand
the
source
of
the
errors
and
implicating
her
duty
of
candor.
At
the
same
time,
the
Court
credits
several
specific
mitigating
factors
that
reflect
counsel’s
appropriate
response
once
the
seriousness
of
the
issue
became
clear.
She
has
accepted
responsibility
for
the
errors
in
her
filings
and
expressed
genuine
remorse,
rather
than
attempting
to
deny
the
inaccuracies
or
shift
blame
to
others.
She
has
no
history
of
prior
disciplinary
violations,
and
there
is
nothing
in
the
record
to
suggest
that
her
conduct
was
willful,
repeated,
or
undertaken
for
strategic
advantage.
She
has
already
begun
to
take
concrete
steps
to
educate
herself
about
the
risks
of
AI
in
legal
practice,
including
enrolling
in
continuing
legal
education
courses
focused
on
generative
AI
and
its
proper
use
in
litigation.
She
represents
that
she
is
implementi
ng
firm
-
level
policies
and
procedures
aimed
at
ensuring
that
any
future
use
of
AI
is
accompanied
by
meaningful
human
review
and
verification
of
all
citations
and
quoted
authorities.
These
actions
weigh
in
favor
of
a
sanction
focused
on
education,
process
i
mprovement,
and
public
admonition,
rather
than
a
severe
monetary
or
disciplinary
penalty.
The
Court
emphasizes
that
generative
AI
is
not
inherently
improper
and
may,
when
used
responsibly,
assist
attorneys
with
drafting
and
researc
h—
but
its
use
does
not
abdicate
an
attorney’s
dut
ies
of
responsibility
and
candor
to
the
Court.
Accordingly
,
the
Court
issues
an
admonition
to
Attorney
Guagenty
for
her
misuse
of
AI
in
this
case
,
and
a
broader
admonition
to
the
B
ar
regarding
the
need
for
caution,
verification,
and
transparency
whenever
generative
AI
is
used
in
litigation
.
Case
2:25-cv-00354-SDN
Document
40
Filed
05/05/26
Page
5
of
6
PageID
#:
<pageID>
6
CONCLUSION
T
he
Court
finds
the
following
sanctions
are
appropriate
to
deter
future
improper
submissions.
Plaintiff’s
counsel
is
ordered
to
:
•
A
ttend
a
continuing
legal
education
course
on
the
topic
of
generative
A
I
in
the
legal
field
and
submit
proof
to
the
C
ourt
of
her
attendance
.
She
may
submit
proof
of
the
course
for
which
she
registered
to
attend
on
April
29,
2026
;
•
C
reate
clear
procedures
at
her
law
firm
to
prevent
such
errors
from
happening
again
,
and
to
explain
those
procedures
to
the
Court
in
her
Certification
as
ordered
below
;
•
P
rovide
a
copy
of
this
O
rder
to
Plaintiff
;
and
•
File
certification
on
the
docket
in
this
case
attesting
that
she
has
complied
with
the
provisions
of
this
Order
within
45
days
of
this
Order
.
Additionally,
Plaintiff
is
ORDERED
to
file
an
amended
response
in
opposition
to
Defendants’
motion
to
dismiss
for
failure
to
state
a
claim.
The
Court
STRIKES
Plaintiff’s
response
in
opposition
to
the
motion
to
dismiss,
ECF
No.
25,
from
the
docket
.
Defendants’
objection
to
Plaintiff’s
Notice
of
Errata,
ECF
No.
30,
is
DISMISSED
AS
MOOT
.
S
O
O
RDERED
.
Dated
this
5th
day
of
May
,
202
6.
/s/
Stacey
D.
Neumann
U
NITED
S
TATES
D
ISTRICT
J
UDG
E
Case
2:25-cv-00354-SDN
Document
40
Filed
05/05/26
Page
6
of
6
PageID
#:
<pageID>
Provenance
Know 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