The Arkansas Supreme Court issued a show-cause order after discovering that an attorney's brief contained fabricated case citations and inaccurate legal references that the court suspects were generated by artificial intelligence tools.
The order stems from *Arkansas Department of Human Services v. April Ward and Minor Child* (Ark. 2025), where attorney Dana McClain, serving as attorney ad litem for the minor child, filed a brief responding to the Department's expedited petition for writ of certiorari in a dependency-neglect case.
During the court's review of the expedited matter, justices discovered that McClain's brief contained citations to cases that could not be located in any legal database. The brief included direct quotes purportedly from these non-existent cases. Additionally, McClain cited a statute without noting that the statute had changed and used it to support a legal proposition that the current statutory text does not actually support.
"We are concerned that the citations may have been the result of generative artificial intelligence tools and thus 'hallucinated,'" the court wrote in its per curiam opinion delivered Dec. 11, 2025.
The term "hallucinated" refers to AI's tendency to generate false information that appears credible but is entirely fabricated. This phenomenon has become a significant concern in legal practice as attorneys increasingly turn to AI tools for research assistance.
The Arkansas Supreme Court had previously warned the state's legal community about the risks of AI-generated content. In *In re Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct* (Ark. 2025), issued last spring, the court put the Arkansas Bar on notice about concerns regarding generative AI tools in legal practice.
"It is vital that attorneys realize that, while labeled 'artificial intelligence,' these search engines are not legally competent and cannot substitute for thorough legal research and analysis," the court emphasized in its current order. "Many of these GAI tools use algorithms that pull language patterns and regenerate them in altered and inaccurate forms."
The underlying case began when the Arkansas Department of Human Services filed an expedited petition for writ of certiorari on Dec. 2, 2025, regarding a circuit court's order in the dependency-neglect proceedings. The Department argued that the circuit court's review order compelled the agency to take action that violated both the Arkansas Juvenile Code and constitutional separation of powers principles.
The court resolved the Department's request for expedited consideration and the writ petition on Dec. 4, but the discovery of the problematic citations in McClain's response brief prompted the separate show-cause proceedings.
Show-cause orders require attorneys to appear before the court and explain their conduct. Such orders typically precede potential disciplinary action, though the specific sanctions McClain may face remain unclear.
The incident highlights growing concerns about AI misuse in legal practice nationwide. Federal and state courts across the country have grappled with similar cases where attorneys have submitted briefs containing AI-generated false citations, leading to sanctions ranging from monetary fines to formal reprimands.
The Arkansas Supreme Court's response reflects the legal profession's broader struggle with integrating AI tools while maintaining professional standards. While AI can assist with legal research and writing, the technology's current limitations make it unsuitable for unsupervised use in legal practice.
Legal experts emphasize that attorneys remain responsible for verifying all citations and legal authorities, regardless of how they were initially identified. Professional responsibility rules require lawyers to provide competent representation, which includes ensuring the accuracy of legal research and citations.
The case also underscores the importance of proper AI usage protocols in law firms. Many legal ethics experts recommend that attorneys using AI tools implement verification procedures and maintain human oversight of all AI-generated content.
The Arkansas Supreme Court's action sends a clear message to the state's legal community about the consequences of submitting inaccurate legal authorities. The court's reference to "compounding the error and feeding these citations" suggests concerns that false information could perpetuate through legal databases and future AI training.
The show-cause order represents one of the first documented cases of an Arkansas state court directly addressing suspected AI misuse in legal briefs. The outcome may establish precedent for how Arkansas courts handle similar situations in the future.
As the legal profession continues adapting to AI technology, the Arkansas Supreme Court's response emphasizes that technological tools cannot replace fundamental professional obligations of accuracy and competence in legal practice.