Appeals of Huffman Construction, LLC

Appeals of Huffman Construction, LLC, ASBCA Nos. 62591, 62783, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, decision on motion to strike dated October 23, 2025 (Administrative Judge Robyn L. Hamady, concurring Judges Owen C. Wilson and Michael N. O'Connell). Copy of primary document: `files/sources/D-100-huffman-construction-asbca.pdf`.

Counsel for appellant Huffman Construction, S. Leo Arnold and Matthew W. Willis of Arnold, Willis & Conway, used "AI technology to assist in formulating portions of [Huffman's] reply brief, including generating citations." The government alleged the brief contained 48 false or misleading citations, 29 to the hearing transcript, 12 to the Rule 4 file, and 7 to case law (SOF ¶ 5); the Board found over 70 percent of the citations inaccurate, including fictitious cases, cases not supporting the cited propositions, and fabricated citations to hearing transcripts and the Rule 4 file. The attorneys claimed two experienced attorneys and a "qualified and trusted" paralegal had reviewed the brief, but the Board found whatever review occurred "woefully insufficient."

Treating the government's motion to strike as a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 principles, the Board struck Huffman's reply brief in its entirety and denied Huffman's motion for leave to file a revised reply brief with corrected citations, finding the sanction tailored to deter repetition. The Board noted it lacks authority to issue monetary sanctions and that striking the offending brief sufficed. Stricken pleadings as a penalty are a Tier 1 consequence under the library's inclusion rule.

Verify transcript and record citations as well as case citations, since all three categories were fabricated here. A claim that multiple attorneys reviewed a brief means nothing without a real verification process; document who checked what. When a brief is riddled with errors, expect the tribunal to strike it rather than allow a do-over.