Fuselier v. Riscassi: Attorney Ordered to Show Cause for AI-Hallucinated Citations and Fake Quotes | Advocate Prakhar

Case at a Glance

Background

Johnny Fuselier, representing a class of residents, filed a First Amendment lawsuit against John S. Riscassi in his official capacity as Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home. His attorney, Aaron Randall Rice, filed a response brief opposing the defendant’s summary judgment motion. The court identified specific problems: Rice cited “Rodriguez v. It’s Just Lunch, Int’l, 2013 WL 12173926 (5th Cir. 2013),” which does not exist — the federal reporter number belongs to an entirely different case (Vasudevan Software v. Microstrategy, a Northern District of California case), and the case caption belongs to a Southern District of New York case. Additionally, quotes in the brief purporting to come from real cases did not appear in those cases.

The AI Issue

The citation identified in Fuselier displays the classic hallucination signature: an AI tool apparently merged elements from two real but separate cases (a case number from one and a party name from another) to produce a citation that sounds plausible — a Fifth Circuit ruling, with a recognisable case name format — but does not correspond to any real decision. The additional presence of fabricated quotes from real cases compounds the problem. The court had to determine whether Rice’s conduct required a Rule 11 show cause order and, ultimately, whether sanctions are warranted.

What the Court Decided

• The court issued a Rule 11 show cause order directing Attorney Rice to explain the citation deficiencies in his response brief [formal show cause issued].
• The cited case “Rodriguez v. It’s Just Lunch, Int’l, 2013 WL 12173926 (5th Cir. 2013)” does not exist as cited — the reporter number belongs to an unrelated California case [fictitious citation confirmed].
• The brief also contains quotations that do not appear in the real cases from which they are supposedly drawn [fabricated quotes from real cases].
• The pattern of a non-existent case combined with false quotes from real cases indicates likely reliance on generative AI without verification [AI hallucination inference drawn].
• Sanctions determination was pending Rice’s response to the show cause order [proceeding ongoing at time of order].

“In addition to this being a fictitious case, Plaintiff’s Response contains quotations that do not appear in real cases.”

— U.S. District Court, S.D. Mississippi, May 1, 2026

The India Angle

Indian Law Equivalent

Show cause orders in Indian courts typically arise under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, or under the court’s inherent powers preserved by Section 151 CPC. When an advocate files a brief containing fabricated citations, the court may issue a show cause notice under Section 35 CPC for costs, or refer the matter directly to the State Bar Council under Section 36 of the Advocates Act. In criminal proceedings, fabricated quotes could engage Section 193 IPC (false evidence before a public servant) or its BNS 2023 equivalent under Section 229.

Bar Council Rules

BCI Rule 14 (no false statements), Rule 15 (no conduct bringing disrepute), and Rule 33 (professional conduct standards) are directly engaged. The Fuselier show cause framework — requiring an attorney to explain in writing how each problematic citation arose and what verification was performed — is a model for how Indian Bar Councils might structure investigations into AI citation misconduct reported by courts.

Practical Advice for Indian Advocates

• When responding to a court’s show cause notice about citation errors, provide a specific, case-by-case account of how each citation was researched and verified — vague generalities about “following standard research practices” will not satisfy the court.
• If you discover that an AI tool has merged elements from two real cases to produce a fictitious hybrid citation, document this finding and correct it immediately — hybrid hallucinations are particularly dangerous because they appear partially verifiable.
• Advise junior colleagues that AI tools trained on legal text frequently confuse case numbers, reporter citations, and party names from different cases, creating plausible-sounding but entirely fictitious hybrid citations.

Quick Takeaways

• AI tools create hybrid citations by merging elements from two real but unrelated cases.
• Show cause orders require specific, case-by-case verification accounts, not general assurances.
• Fabricated quotes from real cases are as sanctionable as citing non-existent cases entirely.

Deep Dive: The Hybrid Hallucination — How AI Merges Real Cases into Fictitious Citations

The Fuselier citation is a textbook example of what AI researchers call a “composite hallucination” — a generated output that combines genuine elements from multiple real sources into a new, fictitious whole. In this instance, the AI apparently drew the reporter number from one real case (Vasudevan Software v. Microstrategy, a California district court case) and the party name format from another real case (Rodriguez v. It’s Just Lunch International, a New York district court case), producing a citation attributed to the Fifth Circuit that satisfies the formal requirements of a valid circuit court citation while referring to a case that has never existed.

This type of hallucination is more sophisticated and more dangerous than a pure fabrication. A completely invented case name with a random reporter number is relatively easy to detect — a search for the case name returns nothing at all. A composite hallucination, by contrast, may return partial search results: the party name Rodriguez v. It’s Just Lunch International is real (it can be found in SDNY records), and the reporter number 2013 WL 12173926 corresponds to a real case. An attorney who performs only partial verification — checking that the party name or the reporter number exists, but not both — might be falsely reassured.

The First Amendment context of Fuselier adds procedural significance. First Amendment cases involving federal retirement home residents implicate substantial constitutional interests, and the quality of legal argument matters enormously. A summary judgment opposition that contains a fictitious case citation may fail to rebut the defendant’s legal authorities, contributing to an adverse result for the plaintiff regardless of the underlying merits. This is one of the harms identified in Mata v. Avianca — that AI hallucinations “deprive the client of arguments based on authentic judicial precedents.”

For Indian advocates handling constitutional and fundamental rights litigation — particularly writ petitions before High Courts and the Supreme Court — the Fuselier warning is directly applicable. Constitutional litigation often requires citation of key precedents with precision: specific paragraphs, bench composition, and the exact ratio decidendi. AI tools generating composite hallucinations in constitutional case citations would produce precisely the kind of plausible-looking but unreliable authority that Fuselier illustrates. Independent verification against authenticated databases is not merely good practice in this context; it is a constitutional obligation to the client.