Background
Hannah Renee Payne was convicted in Clayton County Superior Court and sentenced to life imprisonment plus 13 years for murder, false imprisonment of Kenneth Herring, and firearm possession during a felony. Payne filed a motion for new trial. Assistant District Attorney Deborah Leslie filed briefs opposing the motion on behalf of the State, and the trial court issued an order (largely drafted by ADA Leslie) denying the motion. Both the briefs and trial court order contained numerous case citations that either did not exist or did not support the propositions for which they were cited.
After oral argument before the Georgia Supreme Court, the Court ordered the State to explain nine fictitious or misattributed cases appearing in the trial court order. ADA Leslie then acknowledged that she had used artificial intelligence software to draft the briefs and proposed order without independently verifying the accuracy of the case citations generated by the AI. She ultimately identified 12 additional unverified, AI-generated cases in the trial court briefing that did not support the propositions offered, and withdrew reliance on nine additional cases cited in her appellate brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Georgia Supreme Court held that citing cases that do not exist or do not support the propositions for which they are cited violates the Court’s rules and falls beneath the conduct expected from Georgia lawyers. While the Court has no rule against responsible use of artificial intelligence, the substantial number of inaccurate citations and failure to independently verify them posed a serious concern for the integrity of the proceedings and the Court’s obligation to dispense justice.
The Court admonished ADA Leslie and the Clayton County District Attorney’s Office for failing to verify the accuracy of case citations before filing. The Court suspended ADA Leslie’s privilege to practice before the Georgia Supreme Court for six months. As a condition of reinstatement, ADA Leslie must complete 12 hours of continuing legal education in ethics, brief writing, and the proper use of artificial intelligence in the legal system, beyond regularly required bar membership hours.
The Court vacated the trial court’s order denying Payne’s motion for new trial and remanded the case with instructions that the trial court issue a new order on the motion without any fictitious or misattributed case citations. Critically, the Court ordered that the new order not be prepared by counsel for either party, and encouraged trial courts to carefully review proposed orders with awareness that AI software may have been used in their preparation.
Key Takeaways
- Attorneys using artificial intelligence to draft legal filings must independently verify all case citations before submission to the court, regardless of whether they rely on AI-generated research
- Failure to verify citations constitutes a violation of professional responsibility rules and can result in suspension of practice privileges, monetary sanctions, and vacation of orders
- Courts will exercise their inherent authority to sanction attorneys for breaching their duty of candor through inaccurate citations, whether generated by AI or otherwise
- Trial courts should scrutinize proposed orders with heightened awareness of potential AI-related errors and may reject counsel-drafted orders when misconduct has occurred
Why It Matters
This decision establishes an important precedent as attorneys increasingly incorporate artificial intelligence into their practice. It makes clear that use of AI does not diminish an attorney’s professional responsibility to ensure accuracy of all filings before the court. The opinion signals that courts will not tolerate unvetted AI-generated content in legal briefs and orders, and will impose meaningful sanctions when lawyers fail to verify AI output. The Georgia Supreme Court has set a clear standard that will likely influence how other courts and state bar disciplinary bodies address AI usage in litigation.
The case highlights a critical risk in emerging AI use in legal practice: large language models can generate plausible-sounding but entirely fictitious case citations. Without independent verification, these AI hallucinations can contaminate judicial proceedings and undermine the integrity of litigation. By requiring verification of all AI-generated citations and sanctioning counsel who fail to do so, Georgia courts have established that attorneys must treat AI as a research and drafting tool, not as a substitute for their own verification and professional judgment.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.