Attorney Fee Award Cut from $100K to $50K, Partly as Sanction for Hallucinated Citations

In Ellis v. McNeese, written by Kansas District Court Judge W. Lee Fowler (decided April 22 but just posted on Westlaw), plaintiff's lawyer prevailed in getting his client reinstated as a nursing student who was punished by Flint Hills Technical College for a religiously motivated vaccine refusal. But when it came to getting attorney fees (which are allowed by the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act), the lawyer fared worse. The court concluded, for various reasons, that the lawyer would normally have been entitled to $100K in fees rather than the $300K he claimed, but then it went on to reduce the fees even further:

On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff's counsel filed a document entitled Opposition to Defendants Motion to Alter Judgment. Within that pleading the Plaintiff's counsel falsely cited two cases, State v. Baker, 290 Kan. 842, 235 P.3d 424 (2010) and Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 110 310 P.3d 1196 (2014) for propositions of legal authority that are inconsistent with the case cited. In addition, there were no fewer than six false citations to non-existent Kansas case law. When confronted by these misrepresentations and facing a Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff's counsel did not deny the allegations or explain how he came up with the false citations, he simply responded that the legal propositions contained in his pleadings were accurate and that his "citation irregularities were technical and clerical…".

Citations to non-existent cases can never be considered technical or clerical errors. They are not formatting or citation errors. They are unprofessional and sanctionable. This Court suspects that Plaintiff's counsel used a generative artificial intelligence program as an aid in drafting his pleading, but no such admission was forthcoming from counsel. Counsel's response to the claim for sanctions is simply the proposition of "no harm, no foul". In addition, this is not the only time Plaintiff's counsel has submitted false citations to a district court. See Anderson v. Aldrich, Douglas County District Court Case No. DG-2025-CV-429, Memorandum Opinion dated March 13, 2026.

Kansas District Court judges must rely on the veracity of citations presented to the court by counsel. The timeline for making decisions at the district court level is measured in minutes, hours, or days. We do not have law clerks to review pleadings for citation errors or misrepresentations. We must rely on attorneys to act professionally in preparing and filing pleadings to be considered by the Court. Plaintiff's actions have failed in that regard. In addition, those actions appear to violate Rule 3.3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. (The actual adjudication of such a violations a matter for determination by the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys.)

In addition, this Court held a status or pretrial conference in this case on January 29, 2026, for the purpose of preparing for the trial of the attorney fees claim. Defense counsel prepared a proposed journal entry for that hearing which did include the recitation of orders made by the court on pending garnishment proceedings. On January 30, 2026, Plaintiff's counsel filed objections to the proposed journal entry and then proceeded to file a journal entry prepared by Plaintiff's counsel representing that it had been approved by defense counsel. Plaintiff's counsel did not have the consent to file said journal entry. The factual scenario is set forth in the Defendant's Motion for Relief from Order filed on January 30, 2026. It is incorporated herein by reference.

Not only was the presentation of the proposed journal entry a violation of Rule 170 as it applies to the filing of journal entries, Plaintiff's counsel's action appears to be an additional violation of Rule 3.3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing opposing counsel's approval when it had not been obtained. The Court vacated the offending journal entry by Memorandum Decision on February 2, 2026. On March 12, 2026, the Court approved and filed the journal entry for said hearing.

District court judges need to rely on counsels' representations on approvals for journal entries submitted in the e-file system. Often that approval is designated by a /S/ symbol on the signature line. It is not unusual to receive 20 or 30 documents per day for review and approval. In fact, some dockets in this district can result in filings more than 100 on any given day. Many of these documents come in days after the hearing. Strict compliance with Rule 170 is mandatory and not an option….

Plaintiff's counsel initially did a good job representing his client and got the relief she needed to finish school and graduate on time…. As previously noted, this Court's calculation of the attorney fee award was initially set at $101,640.00.

However, this Court is of the opinion that it is appropriate to strike 50% of that fee as a sanction for Plaintiff's falsifications of citations and misrepresentations noted above. The Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $50,820.00 for her attorney fees incurred herein. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff for that amount.

Although this sanction may seem substantial to some, Plaintiff's counsel breached the bond of trust that the Court imposes on attorneys in their professional capacity as officers of the court….. The Court further finds that the Clerk of the District Court is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Order to the Kansas Board of Profession Responsibility for their consideration….

An appeal is pending; you can read plaintiff's lawyer's brief as to the fees here.