Jane Doe 1, et al. v. Mount Saint Mary High School Corporation
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
The case
Jane Doe 1, et al. v. Mount Saint Mary High School Corporation, W.D. Okla., No. CIV-22-992-R, order filed May 13, 2026. Copy of primary document: `~/workspace/goals/ai-sanctions-case-monitoring/files/sources/D-150-jane-doe-v-mount-saint-mary.pdf`.
What happened
Attorney Rachel Bussett used AI without checking fake and misleading citations in her filings, then made misleading statements to the court attempting to characterize the fabrications as mere formatting errors.
The rule and the sanction
Rule 11 and the duty of candor. Sanctions: public reprimand, notice to every client, and self-report to her licensing authority. No additional monetary sanction was imposed because the court had already imposed $250 in the related Crist matter and fees were separately being awarded for discovery failures.
How it could have been avoided
Check AI output before filing, and never mischaracterize fabrications to a court after they are discovered. Misleading explanations about "formatting errors" become their own candor violation and increase the sanction.
---