In its November 12, 2026 decision in In re A.S., R.S.-1, and L.S., No. 25-425, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia delivered a reminder about the risks of unverified legal submissions. In Footnote 12, the Court addressed inaccurate citations, a fabricated syllabus point, and fictional quotations in the petitioners’ brief. The warning was clear: technology may assist with legal work, but lawyers remain responsible for what they submit.
The Court explained that the inaccuracies in the brief hindered its consideration of the petitioners’ arguments. The Court noted that other courts have found similar anomalies indicative of generative AI use, highlighting the concern extended beyond whether a cited case existed to whether the quotations and legal propositions attributed to an authority were accurate.
Applying the West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board’s Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01, issued June 14, 2024, the Court explained lawyers have a duty to ensure that AI-produced work is accurate and complete. Failure to do so can implicate duties of competence, candor to the tribunal, and truthfulness to others. The Court also highlighted supervisory obligations under Rules 5.1 and 5.3, quoting the ethics opinion’s reference to those assisting with legal services, “whether human or not.” Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01
The Court surveyed decisions from other jurisdictions imposing consequences for AI-generated inaccuracies, including monetary sanctions, attorney-fee awards, striking briefs, dismissing appeals, and disciplinary referrals. It reminded all members of the profession that they remain personally responsible for verifying every citation, quotation, and statement of law submitted to the Court. Because of the AI generated errors, the Court referred the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for review—a reminder that inaccurate legal submissions can draw scrutiny separate from the merits of an appeal.
In re A.S. is important because the Court did not reject the use of AI. Instead, the Court reinforced the distinction between using technology to assist with a brief and relying on its output without verification. For practitioners, the lesson is straightforward: confirm that each authority exists, read what it actually says, and verify every quotation and legal proposition before filing. Lawyers may use AI for research and drafting, but responsibility for the accuracy of the final product remains with the lawyer.
Please reach out to a Jackson Kelly attorney if you have any questions.