In Re Paula M. Miller v. the State of Texas
Docket 01-26-00319-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- Type
- Concurrence
- Case type
- Other
- Docket
- 01-26-00319-CV
Original mandamus proceeding before the First District of Texas Court of Appeals concerning a petition filed by relator Paula M. Miller
Summary
The Chief Justice issued a concurring opinion in a mandamus original proceeding emphasizing that the petition contains citations and quotations that appear to be fabricated by artificial intelligence. The opinion warns that submitting briefs with nonexistent or misrepresented authorities—whether produced by AI or not—constitutes a serious breach of candor under Texas appellate rules and applicable case law, and may prompt corrective actions such as striking the brief or reporting counsel to the State Bar. The concurrence urges attorneys to verify AI-generated research and quotations before filing.
Issues Decided
- Whether counsel’s use of AI-generated legal research that includes fabricated or misquoted authorities constitutes a breach of candor to the court.
- What corrective measures the court may take when filings contain nonexistent or misleading citations.
Court's Reasoning
The Chief Justice noted that citations and quotations in the petition strongly appear to be AI-generated fabrications and observed that citing nonexistent cases or misrepresenting holdings is a false statement to the court. Applying Texas appellate rules on candor and prior authority, the opinion explains that relying on AI without human verification violates ethical duties and may require sanctions such as striking the filing or reporting counsel to the State Bar. The need to "trust and verify" AI outputs is emphasized to prevent misleading the court.
Authorities Cited
- Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTEX. R. APP. P. 38.1, 38.9
- Schlafly v. Schlafly33 S.W.3d 863 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied)
- United States v. Hayes763 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2025)
Parties
- Relator
- Paula M. Miller
- Judge
- Terry Adams, Chief Justice
- Judge
- Justice Caughey
- Judge
- Justice Morgan
Key Dates
- Concurring opinion issued
- 2026-04-23
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Verify all AI-generated citations
Before filing, counsel should independently confirm that every quoted passage and cited case actually exists and supports the proposition for which it is cited.
- 2
Correct or withdraw filings with fabricated citations
If counsel discovers fictitious or inaccurate authorities after filing, they should promptly correct or withdraw the filing and notify the court as appropriate.
- 3
Consult ethics counsel
Attorneys who relied on AI and face potential disciplinary exposure should consult ethics counsel to evaluate obligations and remedial steps.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court say about AI-generated citations?
- The court warned that citations and quotations that appear fabricated by AI are a serious breach of candor and must be verified before filing.
- Who is affected by this opinion?
- Any attorney or party who uses AI tools for legal research and files briefs or petitions in this court is affected, because they must ensure the accuracy of cited authorities.
- What can the court do if filings contain fake or misleading citations?
- The court may take corrective actions including striking the offending brief and reporting counsel to the State Bar.
- Does this opinion ban the use of AI?
- No; the opinion does not prohibit AI use but requires attorneys to verify AI-generated research and uphold their ethical duties to the court.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Concurring Opinion issued April 23, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-26-00319-CV
———————————
IN RE PAULA M. MILLER, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
CONCURRING OPINION
I write separately to note that the mandamus petition here has attributions
and quotations to caselaw which strongly appear to be AI-fabricated hallucinations.
Filing a document in our Court with fictitious or misleading citations—whether
generated by AI and not checked by a human, or otherwise—is a serious breach of
candor that this Court cannot tolerate. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1, 38.9; Schlafly v.
Schlafly, 33 S.W.3d 863, 873 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied).
“Citing nonexistent case law or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is making a
false statement to a court. It does not matter if [generative AI] told you so.”
United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1067 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (quoting
Maura R. Grossman, Paul W. Grimm, & Daniel G. Brown, Is Disclosure and
Certification of the Use of Generative AI Really Necessary?, 107 Judicature 68, 75
(2023)).
Counsel who appear before this Court and use AI for legal research must do
so with great care. Always “trust and verify” the accuracy and validity of your
results. Trusting AI for legal research without verifying that the cases actually
contain quoted language and stand for the proposition for which they are cited
violates counsel’s ethical duty to this Court. And that unfortunately will require
the Court to take the necessary corrective action including, but not limited to,
striking the offending brief and reporting counsel to the State Bar.
Terry Adams
Chief Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Caughey and Morgan.
Adams, C.J., concurring.
2