Whitfield v. Prime Agency, LLC
Pending: no ruling yet
“Defense counsel's conduct raises substantial questions regarding potential violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) and Pa. R.P.C. 3.3 by citing authorities that do not exist, and attributing quotations that do not exist to authorities that do.”
The court, in its order to show cause, in Whitfield v. Prime Agency, LLC
The case
Whitfield v. Prime Agency, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-00327-AMP (E.D. Pa.), TCPA class action (47 U.S.C. § 227). The court issued an order to show cause on September 18, 2026, first reported October 7, 2026 (this entry captures it on first reporting). Defense counsel is Mark T. Sophocles (see Q-D170-2), named in the order to show cause (Doc. 25) issued September 18, 2026 by Judge Antonio M. Pozos, after the case was reassigned from Judge Kai N. Scott; the available reporting did not name counsel. (Identification from the downloaded court record in the full pass.) Reporting: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/professional-negligence/1852234/busted-tcpa-defense-lawyer-caught-using-genai-federal-judge-likely-to-issue-sanctions
What happened
Defense counsel submitted a brief with six inaccurate citations, some to made-up cases, others attributing quotations to real cases that contain no such language. When called out, the lawyer apologized, claiming he had filed the wrong draft, and then filed a revised brief that contained another false citation.
In his October 2, 2026 response to the show-cause order (ECF No. 28; image-only, transcribed at Stage 2 of the full pass), Sophocles admitted using Gemini and ChatGPT on the original memorandum, withdrew the challenged citations and his earlier 'clerical error' characterizations, and stated he had completed two AI CLE courses and adopted a six-point verification protocol. No ruling on the order to show cause appears in the public record through Doc. 29 (October 8, 2026); the matter remains pending.
The rule and the sanction
No sanction imposed yet, PENDING. The court's order to show cause cites potential violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal): "Defense counsel's conduct raises substantial questions regarding potential violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) and Pa. R.P.C. 3.3 by citing authorities that do not exist, and attributing quotations that do not exist to authorities that do." A hearing was expected in October 2026. Flag: outcome pending; this entry will be updated when the court rules.
How it could have been avoided
"I filed the wrong draft" only works if the right draft is clean, the revised brief's fresh false citation killed the excuse on the spot and mirrors the JMOR Properties (D-165) pattern exactly. Before any correction filing, re-verify every authority in it against primary sources; a correction that contains new hallucinations is treated as evidence of a broken process, not a one-off mistake.
---