Thomas Raynard James v. Detective Kevin Conley, et al.
The case
Thomas Raynard James v. Detective Kevin Conley, et al., S.D. Fla., No. 1:23-cv-24467-KMM, Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein (Doc. 261), entered August 27, 2026. Primary R&R: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.658251/gov.uscourts.flsd.658251.261.0.pdf
What happened
Plaintiff's counsel included multiple purported IACP "Training Keys" (photo-array procedure materials) in the Fifth Amended Complaint that could not be verified; counsel conceded they were the product of unverified AI-augmented research, AI hallucinations, and waited approximately two weeks after the sanctions motion to accept responsibility and correct the pleading. The R&R named the signing attorneys: Aaron Michael Cohn, David S. Rudolf, Sonya Pfeiffer, and Natlie G. Figgers ("Natlie" as spelled in the R&R).
The rule and the sanction
The court denied the Rule 11 sanctions motion on procedural grounds (the safe-harbor service requirement was not satisfied) but found counsel's reliance on unverified AI-generated material irresponsible, denied monetary sanctions, and recommended referral of the four signing attorneys to the court's Ad Hoc Committee on Attorney Admissions, Peer Review, and Attorney Grievance for determination of disciplinary action. As a recommendation, district-judge adoption was not confirmed in the sources reviewed; objections were due ~September 10, 2026, and no adoption order was found as of September 9, 2026.
How it could have been avoided
AI hallucinations are not limited to case law, fabricated exhibits, training materials, and factual submissions trigger the same duties. When opposing counsel flags AI-generated material, correct immediately: a two-week delay in acknowledging the problem supported the disciplinary referral even though Rule 11 sanctions were procedurally barred.