Attorney sanctions; Artificial intelligence (AI); Fabricated legal authority; MCR 1.109(E); MCR 7.216(C); Nonexistent cases; New trial motion; Juror misconduct; MCR 2.611; Affidavit requirement; Sherry v East Suburban Football League; Vexatious appeal; Attorney fees

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial or evidentiary hearing, but that sanctions were required because plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly submitted “fabricated and unsupported legal authority” generated through AI. Plaintiff sought a new trial after a medical-malpractice jury found defendant was not negligent, alleging juror misconduct based on an off-the-record post-verdict discussion. The court first held that the motion was procedurally defective because the alleged facts did “not appear in the record,” so MCR 2.611(D)(1) required affidavits, but plaintiff’s attorney affidavits “were not notarized and were therefore invalid.” The court further held that plaintiff failed to show any alleged misconduct “materially affected her substantial rights,” particularly where her criminal-law presumption-of-prejudice authorities did not apply to a civil medical malpractice action. The court then held that counsel’s citation conduct violated MCR 1.109(E)(5). Counsel cited nonexistent cases in the trial court, again cited a nonexistent case on appeal, cited real cases for propositions “they do not support,” and filed an AI-assisted Notice of Correction that repeated “the same kind of verification failure.” The court held that AI may be useful, but lawyers “remain responsible for the filings they sign and submit” and must verify that authorities exist and support the propositions asserted. The court noted that there was no published Michigan case law on “the appropriate sanction under MCR 7.216(C)(1) or MCR 1.109(E)(6) for an attorney’s submission of fabricated or unsupported legal authority resulting from the misuse of generative” AI but courts in other jurisdictions “have recognized that such conduct may warrant monetary sanctions[.]” Because counsel’s brief “grossly disregarded the requirements of fair presentation” and violated court rules, the court remanded for a determination of defendant’s actual damages and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, payable by plaintiff’s counsel personally. Affirmed and remanded.