A Mississippi case, Withers v. City of Aberdeen, has made the news recently. I see a great many cases with similarities.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the legal world is not news, and perhaps that is the real point. I had a recent conversation with Judge Middlemier*. Judge Middlemier was familiar with various incidents in their courthouse involving AI. But several of my references to incidents around the country were less familiar. That surprised me. How can these newsworthy incidents escape notice?
I was most surprised with the lack of recognition or appreciation for the examples of poor judicial behavior that punctuate our today. See Just Delete It (October 2025). Yes, there is no doubt that judges are failing when it comes to AI. Nonetheless, it is the press coverage regarding lawyers that is persistent and pervasive. So much so that no one can credibly claim to be surprised that AI fabricates and falsifies; "hallucination" is just a nicer word for that. No one can express surprise at this any longer.
I have suggested that more pervasive punishment will apparently be required to deter poor lawyer behavior with AI. See Prosecuted for Lying? (June 2025). That said, some creative and perhaps effective punishments have been imposed. A Mississippi judge's actions in Lazy and Sanctioned (December 2025) are a great example. Judge Sharion Aycock ordered the partners in a firm to audit all the substantive filings that an incompetent, lazy associate filed over the course of her practice. That potential may steer a partner to be more cognizant, observant, and engaged.
Nonetheless, some may be immune to either embarrassment or shame. One might want to read up on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Avoidant Personality Disorder, or Antisocial Personality Disorder (Note to reader, I am not a psychologist and am in no way qualified to suggest what makes someone resistant to shame; this reading is merely suggested).
The Business Insider noted Withers v. City of Aberdeen and reported in June 2026, that Judges are losing patience with lawyers' AI mistakes. The article refers to the problem as "AI slop oozing into ... courtrooms." The language is coarse, the incredulity patent.
The story reports on the cascading coincidence of blind reliance by all the lawyers in a case. You guessed it, it was in Mississippi (coincidentally, it was decided by the same judge who sanctioned the Billups lawyers in Lazy and Sanctioned (December 2025).
In Withers v. City of Aberdeen, like a recent Virginia example, there were issues of blind reliance. See Yes Virginia, Mitch was Right (June 2026). The lawyer there decided to cut and paste research and arguments provided by a client without verification or investigation. Blind faith is, at its very root, blind.
While we perhaps like justice being blind, "stupid is no way to go through life" (Dean Wormer, Animal House, Universal, 1978). That is a little gem that we should all remember each day.
In this latest Mississippi example, the Business Insider article notes that the judge "brought the hammer down." She removed attorneys on both sides of a dispute, told two they cannot practice in that "court for two years," and fined them $8,000.
Mississippi Today noted that the judge in Withers found the lawyers "blindly used generative artificial intelligence." The case involves both out-of-state and local counsel. One out-of-state "admitted to using an AI tool to conduct research," and another to "draft her legal filing." Unfortunately, they were neither diligent enough to "verify the AI work before filing."
Local counsel apparently accepted work done by the out-of-state lawyers and filed it with the court. Their failure was simply in not verifying that work product before signing their names and endorsing the arguments and allegations. The two local counsel met with this embarrassment not for using AI, but for their blind reliance on those who did.
The judge in Withers v. City of Aberdeen concluded that the attorney's behavior "burdened" the court "yet again," citing Billups. The judge found the bilateral "similar sanctionable conduct" to be "an unusual scenario." In an axiomatic and obvious observation, she noted:
“To state ‘the obvious, an attorney who submits fake cases clearly has not read those nonexistent cases, which is a violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.’”
The Judge concluded that all four lawyers conceded that they violated Rule 11. To be fair, Rule 11 does not say the signing lawyer has read the cases cited in their filing. Nonetheless, the judge noted that
“[a]n attorney has a duty to conduct a ‘reasonable inquiry into the facts and law of a case at the time [at] which [he or] she affixes her signature on any papers to the court.’” (citation omitted); Mercury Air Grp., Inc. v. Mansour, 237 F.3d 542, 548 (5th Cir. 2001).
Rule 11 is very similar to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration, Rule 2.515, see A Positive Step (June 2026). However, with the recent amendment to that rule, it is more explicit than Rule 11. With previous holdings such as Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 569 (Fla. 2005), as revised on denial of reh'g (Sept. 29, 2005), the interpretation of Rule 2.515 might be similar.
The Mississippi District Judge stressed precedent that holds a lawyer's duty "is absolute. It cannot be outsourced to technology or delegated to co-counsel." I reiterate and expand: it cannot be delegated or outsourced to a law clerk, paralegal, client, or anyone else. Finally, the judge noted the critical point. This is the "take away." Every lawyer should put the following quote on a post-it note attached to every monitor or screen in their office and home:
“[i]f it were ever an excuse to plead ignorance of the risks of using generative AI to draft a brief without verifying its output, it is certainly no longer so.”
The time has apparently passed for claims of ignorance or excusable neglect. The time has come to simply admit that there is no excuse for blind reliance on AI, other lawyers, law clerks, secretaries, clients, or what the "guy on social media said." Lawyers must be diligent, professional, and personally competent. If that ideal necessitates more pervasive and permanent punishment for rule violations, so be it.
Kathryn Young Williams, barred from that Mississippi District court for two years, fined $2,500.00. Martindale, a lawyer advertising platform, lists Ms. Williams as a partner at Daniel Williams and Associates in Houston, Texas. Martindale notes she has been admitted since 2009 and earned her law degree from Southern University.
Kathleen M. Wilson, barred from that Mississippi District court for two years and fined $3,500.00. Lawyers.com, a lawyer advertising platform, lists Ms. Wilson as a family law and personal injury attorney for 23 years. It is possible that she is the same lawyer disciplined by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in In Re Kathleen M. Wilson, No. 2020-B01488 (LA 2021), which suspended her from the practice of law and noted a previous suspension in 2012. She may have earned her law degree from Southern University Law Center.
Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway, fined $1,000.00. Ms. Ridgeway is listed as a partner at Christian Small in Jackson, Mississippi. Her profile notes she earned her law degree from Mississippi College School of Law in 2016, and lists various accolades and awards.
Mark McClinton, fined $1,000.00. Mr. McClinton is listed as a partner at Russell & McClinton in Albany, Mississippi. According to the Mississippi Bar, he was admitted in 2015. It is possible that he graduated from Mississippi College School of Law in 2015.
*Horace Middlemier is a fictional character, a foil, and a literary reference to the proverbial "every person." Any resemblance to a real person, living or otherwise, is purely coincidental.
