Was Lowery Wilkinson Lowery, LLC, et al. v. State of Illinois, et al. sanctioned over AI-generated citations?

Lowery Wilkinson Lowery, LLC, et al. v. State of Illinois, et al. (E.D. Oklahoma, July 31, 2025) is a documented matter involving citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The recorded outcome was: Sanctions granted: dismissal with prejudice, filing restrictions, and fee award (reasonable amount to be set at hearing). No monetary penalty in this order.

Which AI tool was involved in Lowery Wilkinson Lowery, LLC, et al. v. State of Illinois, et al.?

The order in Lowery Wilkinson Lowery, LLC, et al. v. State of Illinois, 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.

July 31, 2025 · AI sanctions database

Lowery Wilkinson Lowery, LLC, et al. v. State of Illinois, et al.

Lowery Wilkinson Lowery, LLC, et al. v. State of Illinois, 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: E.D. Oklahoma
Date: July 31, 2025
Party: Lawyer
AI tool: Not identified in the order
Outcome: Sanctions granted: dismissal with prejudice, filing restrictions, and fee award (reasonable amount to be set at hearing)
Penalty: No monetary penalty in this order.

FineDismissal

What the record shows

The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and the State of Illinois's motion for sanctions, finding the attorney-plaintiffs vexatiously multiplied proceedings and acted in bad faith across repeated frivolous filings. Under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 and its inherent authority the court dismissed the second amended petition with prejudice as a sanction, imposed filing restrictions on attorneys Lowery and Wilkinson, and found a monetary fee award appropriate, with reasonableness to be determined at a later hearing. The only AI reference is that the plaintiffs falsely accused court justices of submitting an AI-generated pleading; the court made no finding that the plaintiffs' own filings were AI-hallucinated.

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 · E.D. Oklahoma

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