Oklahoma AG Accuses Swadley Defense of AI Hallucinations in Bid to Disqualify Prosecution

Oklahoma AG alleges AI "hallucinations" in Swadley case filing; defense calls it human error

Oklahoma's Attorney General accused Ronald "Brent" Swadley's defense team of relying on Artificial Intelligence to advance a motion to disqualify his office, flagging "errors and a lie" as alleged delay tactics. The defense denies any AI use and attributes the issues to scrivener's errors under a tight deadline, saying they will file a corrected motion.

The dispute sits atop a broader motion arguing the AG's public comments compromised Swadley's right to a fair trial and violate the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. The court ordered a supplemental filing on August 22, 2025, with a deadline of August 25, 2025.

Background: Foggy Bottom contract and charges

Swadley's BBQ partnered with the Oklahoma Tourism Department in 2020 to operate "Swadley's Foggy Bottom Kitchen" in state parks. The deal collapsed in 2022 after allegations the company overbilled the state by roughly $4.7 million.

In February 2024, Swadley and partners Curtis Breuklander and Timothy Hooper were arrested and later indicted. They face charges tied to allegedly defrauding the state.

The disqualification fight

In June 2025, the defense moved to disqualify Attorney General Gentner Drummond, citing repeated, condemning public statements that, they argue, breach the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and threaten a fair trial. The trial was postponed while the disqualification issue is litigated.

The AG's latest response asks the court to "deny the Amended Motion and bring an end to Swadley's improper attempt to delay trial." He claims the amended filing included "AI hallucinations" and inaccuracies presented as authority.

Defense response

Swadley's team rejects the AI allegation: "The AG's suggestion that the amended motion included AI-hallucinated case law is false." They acknowledge errors but characterize them as "innocent human error" from assimilating multiple Word documents across several lawyers and experts under a short deadline.

The defense says a corrected motion will be filed and that the errors do not affect the substance of the request to disqualify. They also note the AG "offers no expert to rebut the opinions of leading experts Dean Emeritus Lawrence Hellman and Professor Bruce Green."

AI in legal practice: risk, ethics, and verification

Attorney Tommy Adler said the use of AI by lawyers "is common but can be dangerous," stressing the duty to verify: "All that work has to be double checked." Blind reliance, he warned, risks unethical or even illegal filings: "You don't want to be that lawyer whose case is on the news because you filed a legal pleading to the court for a case that doesn't exist."

What legal teams should do now

• Adopt a written AI-use protocol: who can use it, for what tasks, and how verification is documented.
• Require human review for every citation and factual assertion; use citators and source documents, not summaries.
• Reinforce duties of candor and diligence; if an error slips in, correct it promptly and on the record.
• Assess trial publicity risks under Rule 3.6 and, for prosecutors, 3.8(f); limit extrajudicial commentary to what the rules allow.
• Maintain an audit trail: prompts, outputs, and revision history to show reasonable steps were taken to ensure accuracy.

Key standards and further resources

For reference, see the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, including provisions on trial publicity and candor to the tribunal. Practical AI literacy and workflow controls reduce error risk without stalling case progress.

Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (OSCN)
Complete AI Training: courses by job