Indiana trial judges can now impose sanctions on attorneys who file pleadings containing fabricated legal citations, even if the lawyer didn't know the citation was fake. The revised court rule, Cause No. 26S-MS-8, took effect August 1 and responds to complaints from state trial judges about "voluminous and disorganized litigant filings, including filings prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence and filings containing fictitious legal authority or fabricated legal citations."
The rule's commentary shows Indiana's high court acted after numerous trial courts raised concerns about AI-assisted filings. Under the new certification requirement, an attorney's signature now verifies that factual contentions have evidentiary support, legal contentions rest on existing law or a nonfrivolous argument to change the law, any cited legal authority is authentic, and the filing does not seek to delay or harass.
A strict authenticity standard
Most jurisdictions already require attorneys to certify that factual assertions have evidentiary support and legal arguments have a good-faith basis. The authenticity certification is what makes Indiana's rule different. It converts a hallucinated case into a rule violation subject to sanctions, with no proof required that the signer knew the citation was false.
The rule covers every attorney submission, including work produced with artificial intelligence, the internet, or other research resources. Legal professionals affected by these developments can review AI for Legal Professionals Courses to understand how these tools fit within court requirements.
Tagged as an "abusive litigant"
The companion Rule 11.2 lets trial courts supervise attorneys whose conduct earns them the label "abusive litigant." That designation includes filing frivolous or repetitive claims, litigating in bad faith, citing fictitious legal authority, or egregiously violating trial procedure or court records rules.
The presence of fictitious legal authority - a distinguishing characteristic of AI-authored pleadings circa 2026 - authorizes the judge to tag the responsible attorney as an abusive litigant. Courts can impose eleven remedial measures, including requiring attorneys to certify future filings under penalty of perjury, attaching lists of prior cases involving the same cause of action, providing specific page citations to supporting documents, limiting requests for reconsideration, restricting page or word counts, and limiting exhibits or attachments.
Sanctions follow bad faith or failed remedies after an opportunity for hearing. Courts may impose default, dismissal with prejudice, expenses, and attorney's fees, and may direct those penalties at the attorney rather than the client.
Deposition rules changed too. Under revised Rule 30(B)(2), an attorney who claims a witness will soon leave the state to justify an early deposition must certify supporting facts as true. A false certification draws remedies under Rule 11(C) or other applicable authority.
Other states follow
Indiana isn't alone. The Florida Supreme Court amended its rules earlier this year to require attorneys who sign a pleading to represent that "the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited." That rule took effect June 15, 2026. Available sanctions include reprimand, contempt, striking the document, dismissal, costs, and attorney's fees.
New York's revised 22 NYCRR Part 161 requires any lawyer who uses an AI tool to carefully review the paper and independently confirm it contains no fabricated cases, statutes, or other material. The rule reaches deposition-related work product that later migrates into court submissions.
In California, proposed legislation (SB574) would require attorneys to disclose AI use in their work and verify the accuracy of generative AI outputs, including case and statutory citations. The term "outputs" is broad enough to cover any AI-generated materials created for litigation, not just case citations.
Ropes & Gray's legal AI governance tracker reports that 18 states have court-ordered rules requiring disclosure or AI-use verification by attorneys. The policy landscape continues to shift quickly. Attorneys should watch their jurisdictions for changes.
For support staff, the rules create practical document review burdens related to citation verification and AI output checking. AI Learning Path for Paralegals covers the skills needed to build and implement these checks in daily work.
Why this matters for Legal professionals
This is no longer an ethics debate about whether to disclose AI use. Indiana's rule creates a strict liability standard: a fabricated citation alone, regardless of intent, now carries court penalties. Attorneys who rely on large language models still need original verification systems - checking citations against Westlaw or Lexis, confirming the names and docket numbers of every case, and building a document workflow that makes halluciinated references hard to release. That same process covered by your firm's existing professional responsibilities in every jurisdiction, but the sanctions are sharper in states like Indiana where a filing with a fabricated citation has a designated punishment with a name attached.
Your membership also unlocks:
