| Court - Judge Name |
Effective Date |
Applicable To | Categories |
Summary |
| W.D. Ky. – Judge Greg N. Stivers | 11/10/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Swincher v. Fay Servicing, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221144, (W.D. Ky. Nov. 10, 2025), the pro se plaintiffs reported that their motion to remand was “prepared by [an] online attorney” and that their reply was “prepared with the assistance of an online attorney.” The court indicated that while it was not clear what the pro se plaintiffs meant by those statements, the plaintiffs’ filings cited to various “nonexistent case law,” potentially as a result of using GenAI. The court warned the plaintiffs that “any further citation to nonexistent legal authority may result in the imposition of sanctions.” |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| W.D. Ky – Judge Michael J. Buckner | 6/30/2025 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | In Buckner v. Hilton Glob., 2025 WL 1725426 (W.D. Ky. June 20, 2025), the pro se plaintiff sought to have the judge recused and “chastised the Court for commenting on [his] citation to nonexistent caselaw” in its prior opinion (where the court previously warned the plaintiff that his pro se status “will not be tolerated as an excuse for citing nonexistent case law,” 2025 WL 890175, at *15 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 21, 2025)). Judge Jennings addressed the plaintiff’s critique, holding that although courts are to “construe filings by pro se litigants liberally,” the court nonetheless has an “obligation to prevent fraud on the court from misuse of [AI],” such as through the inclusion of hallucinated cases in court filings. The court further likened the use of AI to draft legal filings to “ghostwriting,” which “‘evades the requirements’ of Rule 11” and “creates serious concerns for maintaining candor to the Court.” The court concluded that the plaintiff’s “citation to nonexistent case law . . . directly violates his duty of candor,” wastes the time and money of both opposing counsel and the court, and is not a proper basis for recusal. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Ky. Ct. App. – Judge Susanne M. Cetrulo | 3/28/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Salyer v. Salyer, 2025 Ky. App. LEXIS 160 (Mar. 28, 2025), Judge Cetrulo criticized a party for “cit[ing] two non-existent” cases in his briefing, noting that although the court issued a show cause order “suspecting that [AI] was used to obtain case citations that do not exist,” the party’s response to that order that “did not fully alleviate [the court’s] serious concerns.” The court categorized this sort of behavior as a “failure to follow briefing requirements,” citing Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(A)(4), warning that such failure “could result in sanctions in future appeals,” although the court did not elect to impose sanctions at this time. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting |
Kentucky
Jump to:
