In Powhatan County School Board v. Skinger, No. 3:24cv874, 125 LRP 17324 (E.D. Va. June 2, 2025), motion to vacate denied, 2025 WL 1842621 (E.D. Va. July 2, 2025), the district court addressed improper filings submitted by a pro se defendant who acted as an advocate in a special education matter and struck multiple pleadings after finding extensive violations of procedural rules and misrepresentations of legal authority.
The court described growing concerns with the careless use of generative artificial intelligence in legal filings, noting that impartial hearing officers and courts have increasingly encountered submissions containing irrelevant or nonexistent case law, inaccurate quotations, and arguments that lack coherence. Against that backdrop, the court found that the advocate’s filings in this case contained at least forty-two citations that did not exist or were otherwise improper.
In addition to the nonexistent citations, the court identified numerous violations of the local civil rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The filings exceeded applicable page limits and contained what the court characterized as conclusory and unconnected statements that were difficult to understand and unsupported by relevant authority. The court identified the citation of nonexistent cases as the most troubling deficiency and described it as a likely consequence of reliance on generative AI, observing that other courts had flagged the same issue.
The court explained that if an attorney had engaged in similar conduct, sanctions could include monetary penalties, orders to pay the opposing party’s fees incurred in responding to the filings, entry of an adverse judgment, or removal of authorization to practice law. In this case, however, the court concluded that monetary sanctions would be ineffective because the advocate appeared to be judgment proof and unlikely to be deterred.
In a footnote, the court referenced a prior decision in which it had found that the same advocate engaged in a “scorched earth” strategy of filing numerous Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) actions against Virginia school boards to impose litigation costs and pressure settlements. The court observed that the advocate continued to pursue the same strategy on behalf of the Skinger family and noted testimony at an April 2, 2025 evidentiary hearing in which a witness confirmed that the practice would continue.
Rather than impose sanctions, the court struck six pleadings that exceeded page limits, were not understandable even under the liberal standards afforded to pro se litigants, or contained misrepresentations of the law. It permitted the submission of replacement filings and issued a stern warning to the advocate and co-defendant against further improper conduct.
The decision reflects that reliance on generative artificial intelligence does not excuse violations of procedural rules or the submission of nonexistent legal authority.