(Powhatan County School Board v. Todd Skinger, et al., No. 24-874, E.D. Va., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104564)
(Opinion available. Document #46-250716-006Z.)
U.S. Judge Robert Payne of the Eastern District of Virginia said in a June 2 ruling that AI-generated fake citations are an issue that is “becoming far too common” while noting the impact such conduct has on the court and opposing party. “The pervasive misrepresentations of the law in [Kandice] Lucas' filings cannot be tolerated. It serves to make a mockery of the judicial process. It causes an enormous waste of judicial resources to try to find cited cases that do not exist and to determine whether a cited authority is relevant or binding. most are neither,”
“In like fashion, Lucas' adversaries also must run to ground the nonexistent cases or address patently irrelevant ones. The adversaries must thus incur needless legal fees and expenses caused by Lucas’ pervasive citations to nonexistent or irrelevant cases.”
Attorney Fees Sought
Todd Skinger and Kandice Lucas filed several due process hearing requests against Powhatan County School Board (PCSB). In at least 10 instances, Skinger was unsuccessful at the hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
PSCB filed an action against Skinger and Lucas seeking costs and attorney fees spent adjudicating the administrative complaints.
After PSCB filed its suit, Skinger and Lucas filed an additional eight due process hearing requests. The U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Virginia stayed the due process hearings.
Skinger and Lucas, appearing pro se, filed a series of motions, including one by Lucas seeking to have Judge Robert Payne recuse himself from the suit and seeking other remedies.
PSCB responded to that filing by noting that it was unable to find several of the cases cited by Lucas and that some of the cited cases did not stand for the proposition that Lucas put forth.
Ongoing Problem
Judge Payne noted that Lucas’ filings often include attachments that should be a part of the filing itself, allowing her to avoid page limitations. Further, many of Lucas’ filings “are not presented in complete sentences” but instead are merely “conclusory and prejorative assertions,” Judge Payne said.
This and other errors in filing have made it “quite difficult, indeed often impossible, for the Court to discern what Lucas is trying to say or what, if any, legal support there exists to support what she is attempting to say. And, in reading the responsive filings made by PCSB, the Court perceives that counsel for PCSB has encountered the same difficulty.”
Judge Payne noted that Lucas admitted at an April 2025 hearing that she relies at least in part on ChatGPT to write briefs.
Judge Payne then said his own review turned up five filings containing 42 instances where Lucas cited case law that does not appear to exist. Lucas’ filings also contain incorrect reporter citations, decisions attributed to the wrong court or references to rulings without any corresponding citation at all, Judge Payne said.
Sanction
“If a lawyer or law firm engaged in the conduct in which Lucas has engaged, the lawyer would be sanctioned, perhaps monetarily or with an order to pay the opponent's fees, perhaps by the entry of an adverse judgment or by removing the lawyer's privilege to practice law. Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 613-16 (2d Cir. 2024). . . . Courts have also routinely threatened to impose sanctions on litigants proceeding pro se who cite Al-hallucinated or otherwise nonexistent legal authority to support their positions,” Judge Payne said.
But Lucas appears to be judgment proof, and so no monetary sanction would change her conduct, Judge Payne said.
Judge Payne said he would strike the burdensome filings in the interest of justice and in an attempt to end the abuses. Because Lucas does appear to challenge the claims against her and is pro se, Judge Payne said he would grant leave to amend so that Lucas can file compliant briefs.
Counsel
Skinger and Lucas appear pro se.
PCSB is represented by Laura Maughan and Matthew D. Green of Sands Anderson PC in Richmond, Va.
(Additional documents available: Lucas’ motion to recuse. Document #46-250716-007M.PCSB’s opposition. Document #46-250716-008B. Lucas’ demand for sanctions.Document #46-250716-009M. Lucas’ opposition to injunction.Document #46-250716-010M. Lucas’ motion for reconsideration. Document #46-250716-011M.Lucas’ reply on motion to recuse. Document #46-250716-012M.)