Was Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (2) sanctioned over AI-generated citations?

Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (2) (N.D. California, April 28, 2026) is a documented matter involving citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The recorded outcome was: Monetary penalty: $1,001 (paid personally); CLE and circulation requirements. $1,001 in monetary penalties.

Which AI tool was involved in Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (2)?

The matter records CoCounsel as the generative tool associated with the unverified citations in Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (2).

April 28, 2026 · AI sanctions database

Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (2)

Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (2) is one matter in the Veritas record of US court proceedings involving AI-generated citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The summary below is drawn from the underlying court document, linked at the foot of this page.

Court: N.D. California
Date: April 28, 2026
Party: Lawyer
AI tool: CoCounsel
Outcome: Monetary penalty: $1,001 (paid personally); CLE and circulation requirements
Penalty: $1,001 in monetary penalties.

FineProfessional sanction

What the record shows

The court addressed Attorney Lenden Webb's filing, which cited authorities that included citations to non-existent or improper case law generated through his firm's use of Westlaw's CoCounsel AI tool. The court personally sanctioned Webb $1,001, payable by him and not by his firm, and ordered him to complete continuing legal education and to circulate the order and CLE materials within his firm.

This entry reflects the court document as filed. The citations at issue could not be located in the reporters named at the time of the order. The reading here is descriptive of the public record and is not legal advice.

Source documents

Primary court document ↗

The test this filing did not run

Every matter in this record shares one mechanism: a citation that did not resolve to an opinion in the reporter named, in a brief that was filed before any verification step ran. Veritas runs that step. The Filing Risk Scanner extracts each citation, resolves it against reporter and public-record sources, and returns a verdict on each one — located, partial, or not located in reporter — before the brief is signed.

Run a free review Back to the full tracker →

Filed under · AI sanctions database · N.D. California

About this publication

Veritas is a pre-filing citation verification platform for law firms and in-house counsel. Every post on the audit log is written by the Veritas editorial team and cross-checked against the underlying sanctions order, standing order, or published opinion it references. Reporter citations are read in their named volumes. Quotations from court orders are checked against the docket.

The product was built by Andrew Zoll, founder of Veritas, who tracks generative AI sanctions in federal and state courts and turns each documented failure mode into verification logic the scanner runs. Veritas was built after the canonical Mata v. Avianca sanctions order made the verification gap a published failure mode of the bar.

AI sanctions database · Sample report · Pricing · Run a scan