Seth Cameron Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions Inc.
The case
Seth Cameron Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., S.D. Ind., No. 1:2025-cv-01641, Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore (Doc. 395), filed February 12, 2026, recommending sanctions against attorney James Louis Policchio. The district judge adopted the recommendation in a final order filed September 11, 2026 (Doc. 447); an earlier order (Doc. 399) referred the matter to the Indiana Attorney Disciplinary Commission. Primary R&R: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/indiana/insdce/1:2025cv01641/223776/395/0.pdf ; coverage: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/investigations/2026/09/02/ai-hallucinations-in-indiana-courts-judges-crack-down-on-joe-exotic-attorney/91070219007/
What happened
Policchio, a solo Indianapolis practitioner, filed five briefs containing citations to nonexistent cases. He told the court he had underestimated the workload of litigating against dozens of defendants, was overwhelmed, and had terminated his Lexis subscription for cost reasons: the platform he had previously used for cite-checking.
The rule and the sanction
The magistrate judge recommended a personal $10,000 sanction under Rule 11, set high because prior modest sanctions had "failed to act as a deterrent," and referred the matter to the Chief Judge under Local Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 2(a) for consideration of further discipline. Chief Judge James R. Sweeney II is quoted criticizing the "abdication of those personal and professional responsibilities to those very machines." The district judge adopted the recommendation on September 11, 2026 (Doc. 447), imposing the $10,000 sanction.
How it could have been avoided
Canceling your verification tools to save money is not mitigation: courts treat it as compounding the abdication. Solo practitioners should budget for at least one reliable citation-verification method before taking on citation-heavy litigation.