Hill v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority

Hill v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority, No. CIV-24-1298-D (W.D. Okla.), Order adopting the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Document 143), filed December 4, 2025. Federal district court. Copy of primary document: `~/workspace/goals/ai-sanctions-case-monitoring/files/sources/D-114-hill-v-oklahoma-county.pdf`.

Plaintiff's counsel Michael McBride confirmed at a September 3, 2025 hearing that he used ChatGPT to draft his response to a motion to dismiss, which cited nonexistent cases. He deflected responsibility to his legal staff, and the court noted a pattern of deeply troubling conduct including repeatedly missed deadlines and filings of opposing parties' motions as his own.

Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority. Sanctions: McBride must pay the defendants' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred for attending the show-cause hearing; must disclose in all future pleadings whether generative AI was used, name the specific tool, and certify he has checked the accuracy of any AI-drafted portion including all citations and authority; and must complete a minimum of three hours of CLE in ethics or legal technology (including at least one hour on generative AI) within 90 days, with proof filed on the docket.

(a) Admitting ChatGPT use is only the start; the failure was never checking its output. (b) Blaming staff does not work when the attorney signed and filed the document. (c) Treat an AI disclosure and self-certification regime as a serious ongoing obligation: the court warned further nonexistent citations will draw additional sanctions.

---