Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be a very useful tool, but it does not replace the necessity of independent judgment by an attorney. A recent case demonstrates the significance of this danger. That is Heimkes v. Fairhope Motorcoach Resort Condo. Owners Ass'n, No. 1:22-cv-448-TFM-N, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70410, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2026). State courts may be looking to this opinion for guidance.  In the case a pattern of attorney misconduct, including reliance on AI, resulted in a reprimand for counsel, referral to the bar, and significant sanctions. In the area of employment law there can be many nuances in the case law, and it is tempting to rely on AI but this case raises the caution flag.

Careful use of AI is important as to pleadings and briefs but it can impact relations with clients. Clients will utilize artificial intelligence (AI) and then demand their attorney to take certain action and make certain arguments in reliance on that. However, this case stands as a reminder that advancing client arguments based on AI can result in loss of a license, damage to reputation, and significant sanctions.

There are some specific takeaways from the opinion:

First, “… a lawyer is absolutely responsible for the citations and submissions to courts”. Id. at 23. Claiming the errors were typographical errors or due to oversight and not the result of AI does not necessarily matter to the court as they constitute false statements of law.

Second, an attorney who advances an argument known to be false, or who fails to recognize the existence of pertinent legal authorities may be found to be dishonest toward the court. In fact, the court noted that the attorney must disclose directly adverse authority in the controlling jurisdiction even if not raised by the opposing party. Id at 23.

Third, “A court can impose an appropriate sanction on an attorney who violates Rule 11(b) on its own initiative. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(1), (3).” Id.  at 27. The Court noted the standard for assessing sanctions:

 (1) when a party files a pleading that has no reasonable factual basis;

 (2) when the party files a pleading that is based on a legal theory that has no reasonable chance of success and that cannot be advanced as a reasonable argument to change existing law; or

 (3) when the party files a pleading in bad faith for an improper purpose." Burgos v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 786 F. App'x 231, 233 (11th Cir. 2019)4 (cleaned up) (citing [*28]  Worldwide Primates, Inc. v. McGreal, 87 F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir. 1996)); see also Gulisano v. Burlington, Inc., 34 F.4th 935, 942 (11th Cir. 2022). Id. at 27.

The results in this case show the seriousness of bad actions:

The Court referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar for whatever disposition they deem appropriate,

1. This Court concluded the attorney was “.. not fit to continue to practice law—certainly not in litigation which requires court appearances and meeting deadlines”. Id. at 41-42.
2. The Court granted the Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and awarded attorneys' fees of $55,597.00. This assessment was against the attorney and not his clients.
3. The Court required the attorney to file a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order in all pending cases, in courts where the attorney appears as counsel for 12 months after the date of the order, and to furnish the order to all jurisdictions in which he practices law.
4. The Court also ordered the Clerk of Court to send a copy of the Order to the Chief Judges for the Northern District of Alabama, the Middle District of Alabama, and the Southern District of Alabama.
5. The Court ordered the Clerk to also submit the order for publication in the Federal Supplement. Id at 53-55.

There was a lot of misconduct besides just AI here. But the opinion does significantly ratchet up the concern of AI in the practice of law.