Was In re Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc., et al. sanctioned over AI-generated citations?

In re Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc., et al. (M.D. Alabama (Bankruptcy), November 20, 2025) is a documented matter involving citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The recorded outcome was: Formal reprimand and revocation of pro hac vice admission; limited circulation of order. No monetary penalty in this order.

Which AI tool was involved in In re Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc., et al.?

The order in In re Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc., et al. does not identify a specific generative tool by name. The court treated the citations as the product of an unverified AI-assisted drafting workflow.

November 20, 2025 · AI sanctions database

In re Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc., et al.

In re Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc., et al. 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: M.D. Alabama (Bankruptcy)
Date: November 20, 2025
Party: Lawyer
AI tool: Not identified in the order
Outcome: Formal reprimand and revocation of pro hac vice admission; limited circulation of order
Penalty: No monetary penalty in this order.

Professional sanction

What the record shows

The court found pervasive citations, quotations, and representations of legal authority it determined were inaccurate, misleading, or nonexistent in attorney Cassie D. Preston's Motion to Reconsider, including one quote the court found was nonexistent and recycled in later filings. The firm conceded responsibility under Bankruptcy Rule 9011, reported a prior Georgia AI-hallucination matter, and described remedial measures including review of roughly 2,700 of Preston's filings. The court imposed sanctions in the form of a formal reprimand and revocation of Preston's pro hac vice admission, together with limited circulation of the order.

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 · M.D. Alabama (Bankruptcy)

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