Georgia Supreme Court Suspends Lawyer for Two Years for Neglect of Client Matter

In the Matter of Ramon David Sammons, Jr., No. S26Y0848 (Ga. Aug. 11, 2026) (per curiam)

Disposition: 24-month suspension, with conditions on reinstatement.

A Georgia lawyer was suspended for two years for abandoning a client whose case he took. He will need to show that his mental health issues, including depression, have been treated before he can be reinstated. The court found some degree of mitigation because the lawyer notified the disciplinary authorities of the violation. In Georgia, the Supreme Court reviews the findings of a Special Master who is retained to hear evidence and make factual and credibility findings. in this case the Supreme Court accepted the findings of the Special Master.

Procedural posture: Third time before the Court. (1) First remand: Court vacated a default judgment because Sammons wasn’t actually in default when it entered. (2) Second remand: Special Master recommended accepting Sammons’s petition for voluntary discipline (public reprimand), but the Court rejected it without prejudice because his claimed mitigation (depression/anxiety since age 18, therapy, medication) wasn’t supported by any evidence in the record. (3) This decision: on second remand, a new Special Master granted summary judgment to the State Bar and recommended a 24-month suspension; Sammons filed no exceptions.

Underlying misconduct (Rules 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4): Retained in 2017 on contingency to pursue a personal injury claim for an elderly dementia patient (through her daughter) against a nursing home. Sammons received the medical records, told the daughter he’d completed the demand letter — then went silent. He ignored her repeated calls and emails for roughly six months, including one flagging that the statute of limitations was about to run, and never responded. The limitations period expired and the claim died. (An unauthorized-practice count under Rule 5.5(a) was dismissed without prejudice earlier in the proceedings and isn’t at issue here.)

The Defense: The lawyer defended on the ground that he had untreated mental illness. The lawyer failed to prove up that defense with proper medical testimony, however. The lawyer did participate in the process, but that was insufficient to avoid discipline.

Mental state finding: Initial disregard deemed negligent, but the Special Master found Sammons’s later, more serious conduct — continued silence, failure to correct his bar-registration address (which caused the original service/default problem), and general avoidance — was “knowing,” inferred from the circumstances under Rule 1.0(o).

Aggravating factors (ABA Std. 9.22): dishonest/selfish motive (abandoning the case to avoid admitting the missed deadline); a two-year pattern of misconduct; multiple rule violations; bad-faith obstruction of the disciplinary process itself (ignoring orders, the grievance, and the Bar’s investigation notice; baseless denials of his own emails); vulnerability of the client/victim; his substantial experience practicing law; and no restitution or effort to rectify the harm.

Mitigation: The Special Master didn’t disbelieve his mental-health claims, but his failure to submit any corroborating evidence (despite being ordered to and given the opportunity) sharply undercut their weight — this is what moved the case from “likely reprimand” to suspension/disbarment territory. The only real credit given: no prior discipline, and some acceptance of responsibility via the voluntary-discipline petition.

Sanction analysis: Applying ABA Standard 4.4 (duty of diligence), the Court agreed the harm (destroying the client’s claim by abandonment) would typically warrant disbarment absent mitigation — citing In the Matter of Bell and In the Matter of Starling. But because Sammons’s mitigation, though poorly supported, wasn’t disbelieved and his record was otherwise clean, the Court followed the Special Master’s recommendation and imposed suspension rather than disbarment, citing comparable cases (Whiteside – 3 months; Golub – 12 months; Jaconetti – 36 months with conditions; Bagwell – 24 months with conditions, closely analogous on facts).

Reinstatement conditions: Petition to the Review Board must include a licensed psychologist/psychiatrist’s written certification of competency to practice; if reinstated, Sammons must undergo a Law Practice Management Program evaluation and implement its recommendations within six months, with proof submitted to the Bar’s General Counsel.

If you run into trouble, call an experienced attorney to discuss what to do next. There are often pathways to curing the problem or mitigating the discipline if you act promptly and appropriately. Counsel is the way to go here. We can often help if you don’t wait too long to contact us.

Check AI outputs twice

Tov Realty, LLC v. Suarez, 355 Conn. 902 (2026).

Background: Attorney Ian G. Gottlieb and his firm, GLG Law, LLC, filed applications for certification to appeal and subsequent briefs in two consolidated cases (Tov Realty v. Suarez and Kosel Equity v. MacGregor). Both filings contained hallucinated case citations generated by ChatGPT—roughly seven erroneous or unverified citations in total.

Where the lawyer went wrong:

Verified once, then let AI touch the work unchecked. Gottlieb did his initial legal research properly, using LexisNexis and Shepard’s to confirm the citations in his rough drafts were accurate. His mistake was pasting those already-verified drafts into ChatGPT afterward, purely to improve organization and prose quality.
Assumed the AI wouldn’t alter substance. He didn’t anticipate that ChatGPT would add new citations or alter existing ones while “editing.” Because the AI’s changes didn’t disturb the underlying legal propositions (which remained correct), nothing about the output looked wrong on its face.
No second verification pass. This is the core failure: neither Gottlieb nor the law firm colleagues who reviewed the documents before filing re-ran citation checks after the ChatGPT edit. The court stressed that a competent verification process has to catch changes introduced at any stage of drafting, not just the first draft.
Discovery came from opposing/amici parties, not internal review. The errors surfaced only after amici curiae (represented by the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization) flagged the fabricated citations—not through the firm’s own safeguards.

Legal basis: The court held this violated Rule 1.1 (competence) of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct, citing a growing body of authority (McCarthy v. DEA (3d Cir. 2026), Park v. Kim (2d Cir. 2024), State v. Coleman(Ohio App. 2026), among others) holding that filing AI-hallucinated citations breaches the duty of competent representation regardless of intent to deceive.

Mitigating factors: No dishonest/selfish motive, full cooperation with the disciplinary process, candid admission, sincere contrition, no prior discipline, and prompt filing of errata sheets once notified.

Sanctions imposed:

6 additional CLE hours in ethics/law office management (3 specifically on generative AI use), on top of the standard 12-hour annual requirement
$1,000 donation each (Gottlieb and the firm) to the CT Bar Institute
A compliance report to the Appellate Clerk within six months, with a courtesy copy to the Statewide Grievance Committee (not a referral)
Compliance with reciprocal discipline in any other jurisdiction where he’s admitted

The court also used the opinion to flag Connecticut’s newly adopted practice rules (Practice Book §§ 4-9(b), 4-2(b), 62-6(d), 85-2(11)) requiring independent verification of any AI-generated citations or authorities in court filings, and noted—without deciding—that competence in this area also implicates privilege, confidentiality, and work-product concerns when using public AI platforms.

Comment: here the lawyer handled the disciplinary process admirably.

Florida Reprimands Chesebro

The Florida Supreme Court was much kinder to Kenneth Chesebro than other courts have been, giving him a reprimand for 2020 election misconduct. The Florida Bar v. Kenneth Chesebro (SC2024-1528, June 11, 2026):

Background Chesebro pled guilty in Georgia state court to conspiracy to file a false document (O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20.1), stemming from his role in the 2020 “false electors” scheme — specifically, transmitting a slate of false Georgia electors to the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. He was sentenced to five years of felony probation under Georgia’s First Offender Act. That probation was later terminated early, and under Georgia law (O.C.G.A. § 42-8-60(e)), he was thereby “exonerated of guilt” and deemed never to have had a criminal conviction.

Referee’s Recommendation The referee found Chesebro guilty of misconduct and recommended a 30-day suspension under Florida Standard 7.1(b) (suspension for knowing/intentional misconduct causing injury to the legal system).

Majority Disposition The Court approved the finding of guilt but rejected the 30-day suspension, instead imposing a public reprimand plus a requirement to attend The Florida Bar’s Ethics School. The majority reasoned that while comity doesn’t erase the underlying misconduct, Georgia’s full exoneration under its First Offender Act was a fact the Court could not ignore in fashioning discipline — balancing its duty to regulate Florida lawyers against respect for a sister state’s judgment. The Court also lifted Chesebro’s October 28, 2024 felony suspension and reinstated him to practice immediately, and entered a costs judgment against him for $2,229.37.

Vote: Muñiz, C.J., and Couriel, Grosshans, Francis, and Sasso, JJ., concurred. Tanenbaum, J., concurred in the discipline but dissented as to costs.

Labarga, J., Dissent Justice Labarga argued the majority’s chosen sanction (public reprimand) actually fits Standard 7.1(c) — negligent conduct — not 7.1(b), which the referee applied for knowing/intentional conduct. Since Chesebro admitted to knowingly submitting fraudulent elector documentation to a federal court, and the Georgia discharge doesn’t erase that admitted act, Labarga viewed a reprimand as inconsistent with the Standards and disproportionate to the gravity of “fraud upon the court” — one of the most serious ethical breaches a lawyer can commit. He would not have gone below the referee’s recommended 30-day suspension.

Comment: the best argument in favor of this reprimand is that these issues have been litigated ad nauseam.

ARDC Alleges Plagiarism

The ARDC has filed a complaint against an Illinois lawyer alleging that he plagiarized an opinion letter by another lawyer. A client requested an opinion letter on gaming law. I have removed the names of the lawyers involved because these are charges and they have not been proven. The original complaint can be found on the ARDC website.

Filed: May 21, 2026 | Rule Charged: Illinois RPC 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation

Background

Respondent is a Chicago attorney licensed since 1993.

The Alleged Misconduct

In May 2024, an online gaming company retained Respondent to provide a written legal opinion analyzing federal laws applicable to its product, for a $5,000 flat fee. He delivered an initial seven-page opinion. The client then requested a revised opinion adding a state-by-state analysis of gaming laws, for an additional $2,500, plus a $1,500 certificate of counsel attesting to the opinion’s applicability.

Rather than authoring the state-by-state analysis himself, Respondent obtained a 181-page confidential legal opinion written in 2023 by a lawyer with Duane Morris LLP for a different client. That document was marked both confidential/attorney work product and copyright Duane Morris 2023.

Respondent then systematically stripped the Duane Morris identifying information — removing the firm’s letterhead, deleting copyright notations on every page, substituting his own name and his client’s name for the name of the Duane Morris lawyer, and replacing the Duane Morris lawyer’s signature with his own — and delivered it to his client as his own original work product on June 12, 2024. He simultaneously executed a certification representing the opinion as the work of The Casino Law Group.

Key Aggravating Facts

Respondent knew the opinion would be passed to the client’s banks and payment processors, who would rely on it to assess the legality of the client’s product
He never sought Duane Morris’ permission to use the opinion
The deliberate, systematic removal of identifying information demonstrates knowing and intentional conduct

Charge

A single count of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation under Illinois RPC 8.4(c), premised on both the false representations of authorship and the plagiarism of the Duane Morris opinion.

Relief Sought

Referral to a Hearing Board panel for findings of fact and a discipline recommendation.

Comments: Plagiarism is easy to prove. You just line up the two documents and compare them. We all make mistakes, but please don’t rush your work product. Rushing to complete an assignment is always a mistake. Take your time. Do your best. Or decline the matter if you are not able to do it. Charging him with “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” under Rule 8.4(c) is harsh, as lawyers commonly copy other legal work when writing pleadings.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

In Most States Sharing Fees With a Nonlawyer is prohibited.

In the Matter of Discipline of William H. Jackson, III (Nev. 2026)

Background

The Nevada Supreme Court approved a conditional admission agreement disciplining attorney William H. Jackson, III for sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer. Jackson paid Hernando Alberto Heredia — operating through a business called “Tus Defensores” — for referring a personal injury case to Jackson. The payment came out of Jackson’s attorney fees from the client’s settlement and exceeded the reasonable cost of advertising for a single matter.

Rules Violated

RPC 5.4(a) — Professional independence of a lawyer (fee-sharing with nonlawyers)
RPC 7.2(a) — Attorney advertising

Analytical Framework

The Court applied a four-factor test drawn from In re Discipline of Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232 (2008):

Duty violated — Duties owed to the profession
Mental state — Knowing violation
Injury — Actual, moderate injury to the profession
Aggravating/mitigating factors (see below)

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

The court found several aggravating factors, (1) a prior disciplinary offense; (2) the selfish motive; and (3) the fact that the lawyer had substantial experience in his practice. In mitigation, the lawyer was cooperative and made full disclosure and was remorseful. The prior offense occurred a long time ago.

Discipline Imposed

Six-month-and-one-day suspension, stayed for 24 months, conditioned on:
- 12 additional CLE hours in legal ethics
- No professional association with Heredia or his entities
- Engagement of a law practice mentor with monthly State Bar reports
- Maintaining good standing and no future misconduct
- $1,000 fine (due within 30 days)
- $2,500 in disciplinary proceeding costs (due within 30 days)

Key Takeaway

This case illustrates that Nevada treats referral fee arrangements with nonlawyer lead-generation businesses as serious professional misconduct. Even where mitigating factors exist, a knowing violation of the fee-sharing prohibition warrants suspension as the baseline sanction. Practitioners should be particularly cautious about payments to nonlawyer referral sources that exceed what would constitute legitimate advertising costs, as that distinction appeared to be a critical fact here.

If you have a question about something related to legal ethics, contact us. It is always better to get advice before proceeding into questionable territory. We can often help.

Ed Clinton, Jr.

ARDC Review Board Recommends Suspension of Immigration Lawyer

Given the government’s focus on immigration enforcement, lawyers in the immigration area should expect to see more disciplinary enforcement. What would draw the interest of the disciplinary authorities are cases where the lawyer neglected immigration cases or took funds from clients and did not complete the work. The ARDC review board recommended a two-year suspension of an attorney. This decision is from the Review Board. It is a recommendation. The Review Board reviews recommendations of the ARDC Hearing Board. The Illinois Supreme Court has the final say on all disciplinary matters.

Summary: In re Mahdis Azimi — ARDC Review Board Report (Feb. 2026)

Background

Mahdis Azimi, an Illinois immigration attorney admitted in 2015, faced a ten-count disciplinary complaint arising from misconduct in ten client matters between September 2021 and October 2023. She operated a solo practice while simultaneously holding a full-time administrative position at Loyola University School of Law.

Misconduct Found

The Hearing Board found violations across all ten counts, including:

Failing to file immigration petitions in seven matters
Making false representations to clients in multiple cases (claiming filings had been made when they had not)
Ignoring client communications
Failing to refund unearned fees in six cases
Failing to surrender client files in four cases
Depositing client funds into her operating account rather than a trust account
Failing to comply with the Administrator’s subpoena for four client files
Making a false statement during a sworn statement to the Administrator
Providing false testimony at the disciplinary hearing itself

Key Aggravating Factors

Prior discipline for nearly identical misconduct (90-day suspension in 2022), with the current misconduct beginning while that prior case was pending
A persistent pattern of dishonesty, not attributable to her mental health diagnoses (ADHD, PTSD, anxiety, depression) per the Administrator’s unrebutted psychiatric expert, Dr. Rone
Failure to accept full responsibility
Lack of credibility as a witness on key issues
No restitution made; no trust account ever opened

Mental Health

Azimi raised mental health as a mitigating factor. Dr. Rone acknowledged her diagnoses could explain disorganization but concluded the pattern of dishonesty was not a symptom of those conditions. Dr. Rone recommended years of dialectical behavioral therapy and found Azimi’s current treatment inadequate and her prognosis for ethical practice poor absent significant intervention. Azimi presented no rebuttal expert, having been barred from doing so after missing disclosure deadlines.

Procedural Rulings Affirmed

The Review Board upheld the Hearing Board Chair’s rulings barring Azimi’s expert witness (due to non-compliance with disclosure deadlines), allowing Dr. Rone’s testimony, and permitting the Administrator’s closing argument on lack of remorse. No due process violation was found.

One Exception — Count VII

The Review Board found the Administrator failed to prove Azimi cashed the client money orders at issue in Count VII, and therefore vacated the Rule 1.15(a) (misuse of funds) finding on that count only. All six other violations in Count VII were affirmed.

Sanction

Hearing Board recommended: 3-year suspension, UFO
Review Board recommended: 2-year suspension, UFO (until further order of court)

The Review Board found a three-year suspension unnecessarily long, but agreed a UFO provision was essential given Azimi’s recidivism, dishonesty pattern, and the psychiatric expert’s conclusion that she remains unfit to practice. To seek reinstatement, she must affirmatively demonstrate rehabilitation, ethical fitness, restitution, and that her mental health treatment has been effective.

Comment: in the immigration area, the client may be vulnerable to deportation. Few of these clients will have the ability to file a legal malpractice lawsuit if they have been deported. For that reason, disciplinary authorities will view these cases as good targets for enforcement. Please keep this in mind if you do this type of work.

ARDC Hearing Board Recommends Harsh Sanction For Failure To Register With the Bar and Certify MCLE Compliance

In re Robert Kent Gray, Jr. (No. 2025PR00035)

Gray, a licensed Illinois attorney since 2002, was removed from the master roll on December 1, 2024 for failing to complete his mandatory CLE hours — earning only 4 of the required 30 credits by the initial deadline and none during the grace period. He was reinstated on January 8, 2025 at 4:00 p.m., after finally completing his hours and paying a $400 reinstatement fee.

Misconduct

During the period of removal, Gray engaged in multiple violations:

Unauthorized practice of law (Rule 5.5(a)) — On January 7, he caused three trial subpoenas to be issued and emailed exhibits to opposing counsel. On January 8, he appeared in court on behalf of clients, including a corporate defendant that legally required licensed counsel.
False statement to a tribunal (Rule 3.3(a)) — When Judge Wright asked whether he was authorized to practice, Gray stated he believed he was and that his credentials were “just waiting for something to process.” The Board found this knowingly false, given that he had checked his MyMCLE account 23 times in the prior days and knew reinstatement required both transcript reporting and fee payment — neither of which had occurred by 10:30 a.m. that day.
Criminal act (Rule 8.4(b)) — Judge Wright found Gray guilty of direct criminal contempt and fined him $200. Gray admitted this in his Answer, making it conclusive evidence of the violation.
Dishonest conduct (Rule 8.4(c)) — Flowing directly from the Rule 3.3(a) violation.
Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (Rule 8.4(d)) — His improper appearance delayed his clients’ potentially dispositive motion to dismiss by nearly a month and caused the court to expend needless resources on a contempt proceeding.

Mitigation & Aggravation

Mitigation: None. Gray’s unsworn statements about his father’s death and diligence in completing CLE credits were not presented as testimony and, in any event, would not have constituted legal mitigation given that he missed both the initial and grace period deadlines by wide margins.

Aggravation (substantial):

Experienced attorney (licensed since 2002; subject to CLE requirements for nearly 20 years)
Received at least 16 MCLE notices before removal; ignored them
Knowingly engaged in an irresponsible course of conduct, not a momentary lapse
Risk of harm to clients from delayed proceedings
No remorse; refused to acknowledge wrongdoing
Blamed CLE providers, the MCLE Board, and the ARDC for delays of his own making
Filed meritless pleadings and made unsubstantiated misconduct charges against Administrator’s counsel
Failed to fully cooperate in the disciplinary proceeding
Prior discipline: One-year suspension in 2018 for strikingly similar violations — unauthorized practice while removed from the master roll, false statements to a tribunal, dishonesty, and prejudicing the administration of justice

Recommendation

Majority (Nair, Edmond): The Board recommended a one-year suspension. The Board distinguished three factually analogous cases (James, Witt, Wiley) that each resulted in six-month suspensions, finding Gray’s misconduct more egregious due to his express dishonesty to the judge, the criminal contempt finding, and his significant recidivism. The majority declined to add an “until further order” (UFO) provision, noting Gray attended his hearing and showed marginally more cooperation than in his prior proceeding.

Dissent (Shiffman): 18-month suspension. The prior one-year suspension demonstrably failed to deter Gray’s recidivism, and a longer suspension is both justified and appropriate.

Comment: this is an experienced lawyer who failed to complete the 30 hours of continuing legal education that Illinois requires every two years and failed certify that he had completed his continuing legal education coursework. In my opinion, he made his situation much worse by failing to inform a judge that he was not, in fact, licensed to practice law. Attending CLE is time-consuming, but you have to follow the rules to remain licensed.

Warn Clients Not To Use AI Agents to Review Lawyer Work product.

California Proposes Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct re Artificial Intelligence

California is proposing new comments to the Rules of Professional Conduct to deal with artificial intelligence. These edits to the comments are the result of numerous decisions where lawyers used AI to create briefs and memoranda without checking to see if the citations were, in fact, real ones. Telling lawyers not to do this has not worked. California makes another attempt by proposing new comments to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Summary: California Proposed Amended Rules on Artificial Intelligence

The California State Bar is proposing amendments to six Rules of Professional Conduct to address lawyers’ use of artificial intelligence. The changes are targeted additions to existing rules rather than wholesale rewrites. Here is a rule-by-rule breakdown:

Rule 1.1 — Competence

The core rule text is unchanged. Two new comments are added:

Comment [1] expands the existing duty to keep abreast of legal developments to explicitly include AI, requiring lawyers to understand the “benefits and risks” of AI tools.
Comment [2] (new) requires lawyers to independently review, verify, and exercise professional judgmentover any AI-generated output used in client representation.

Rule 1.4 — Communication with Clients

Again, the rule text is unchanged. A new Comment [5] requires that when AI use presents a significant risk or materially affects the scope, cost, manner, or decision-making of a representation, the lawyer must communicate sufficient information about that AI use to allow the client to make informed decisions. The duty is contextual — lawyers must assess novelty of the technology, associated risks, scope of representation, and client sophistication.

Rule 1.6 — Confidentiality

A new Comment [2] significantly expands the definition of “reveal” as it applies to confidential information. Inputting client data into an AI tool now constitutes a potential disclosure of confidential information if it creates a material risk that the information could be accessed, retained, or used by the system or other users inconsistently with the duty of confidentiality. This is perhaps the most practically significant amendment.

Rule 3.3 — Candor Toward the Tribunal

A new Comment [3] directly addresses the problem of AI-generated legal citations — a clear response to high-profile incidents of lawyers submitting fabricated AI-generated case citations. It states that the duty of candor requires lawyers to verify the accuracy and existence of all cited authorities, including those generated or assisted by AI, before submission to any tribunal.

Rule 5.1 — Responsibilities of Managerial and Supervisory Lawyers

Comment [1] is amended to add governance of AI use to the list of internal policies that managing lawyers must implement. Firm-wide AI policies are thus now treated as a component of a manager’s baseline supervisory obligations under the Rules.

Rule 5.3 — Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants

The comment is amended to require that lawyers supervising nonlawyer staff provide instruction on AI use in the provision of legal services, alongside other ethical obligations. This is particularly relevant given the growing use of AI tools by paralegals and other support staff.

Key Takeaways

All amendments are comment-level additions — the black-letter rule text is largely preserved. Taken together, the proposed rules create an integrated framework: lawyers must understand AI (1.1), supervise its use (5.1, 5.3), protect client data when using it (1.6), disclose significant AI use to clients (1.4), and verify AI-generated legal authority before filing (3.3). Non-compliance with any of these obligations could form the basis for a disciplinary proceeding.

My comment: We all make mistakes. You should check any work that has your name on it for accuracy, even work by trusted colleagues. There is no reason to embarrass yourself by submitting a brief with false citations. If you screwed up, call me and I can often help you clean up the mess.

Ed Clinton, Jr.

State v. Hannah Renee Payne – Hallucinated Citations

This is an appeal from a criminal trial. The Georgia Supreme Court appears to have noticed that the prosecutor’s memorandum and proposed order (denying Ms. Payne a new trial) was prepared with hallucinated citations and was prepared by artificial intelligence. The case is an important one. Under Georgia law, if you are convicted of murder you receive a life sentence.

Hannah Payne was sentenced to life in prison for murder. She intervened after she witnessed a traffic collision and attempted to make a citizen’s arrest of a man who had engaged in reckless driving and had caused an accident. During the confrontation she shot the reckless driver who died. The jury apparently found that her actions were unreasonable and she was convicted of murder and sentenced to natural life in prison. The prosecutor apparently cited nonexistent cases in her briefs in the trial court and the Georgia Supreme Court. Unfortunately for the State, the trial court cited the nonexistent cases in its order denying Ms. Payne a new trial.

Ms. Payne’s appeal presents real issues. Did she have the right to do a citizen’s arrest of the victim? Were her actions in the altercation reasonable? Obviously, she has a right to pursue her appeal. There is a nonzero chance that the hallucinated citations played a role in the conviction of Ms. Payne and in the trial court’s decision to deny her new trial motion. She may still lose the appeal, but she is fortunate that the prosecutor made an obvious error in using artificial intelligence to draft briefs. This gives her appeal, which has some merit in my view, a chance of success. There is a group of people who believe that everyone charged with a crime is guilty. I do not share that view. Ms. Payne may have acted reasonably in drawing a gun to make a citizen’s arrest of a reckless driver. Her conviction may be unjust. Her sentence of life in prison is clearly unjust, but that is Georgia law. Without the prosecutor’s use of hallucinated cases, the conviction would have been affirmed and no one would have paid any attention to this case. A young woman’s life would be completely wasted behind bars.

The prosecutor will, no doubt, face discipline for the hallucinated case citations. That isn’t the real story. The real story is how few criminal cases actually receive the scrutiny they deserve.

Here are citations to some of the news stories covering this case:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/did-phantom-cases-end-murder-205550482.html

https://www.ajc.com/news/2026/03/chief-justice-presses-clayton-prosecutor-about-citing-cases-that-dont-exist/

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/clayton-county/georgia-supreme-court-weighs-new-trial-woman-convicted-killing-driver-after-crash/TRAIXVOZJ5HPDKCPXEJ4XGITKY/