Suday v. Suday: Texas Appellate Court Finds ‘Most’ Cited Cases in Family Law Brief Are Fictitious (Jan 2026)

Case at a Glance

Background

Maryvel Suday filed a civil appeal regarding an inter-state divorce matter affecting her parents. The Texas Supreme Court had previously reversed a prior appellate opinion that dismissed the estate’s claims, remanding to the San Antonio Court of Appeals to address the merits. On remand, Suday filed a supplemental brief. When the court examined the caselaw cited in the brief, it found that most of the cited cases appeared to be fictitious — non-existent cases that could not be located on any reliable legal database.

The AI Issue

After finding that most of Suday’s supplemental brief caselaw was fictitious, the court made an explicit attribution: ‘it appears Suday may have used an artificial intelligence tool in the preparation of her supplemental brief.’ The court then had to decide whether to strike the brief — which would have been within its power — or proceed to the merits as directed by the Texas Supreme Court. It chose the latter, but issued a direct warning about the use of AI-generated fictitious citations.

• The court found that ‘most’ of Suday’s cited caselaw appeared to be fictitious after exhaustive searches on reliable legal databases [fabricated authority confirmed].
• The court explicitly stated Suday ‘may have used an artificial intelligence tool’ — one of the clearest judicial attributions of AI use to a specific party [AI attribution].
• Despite the fictitious citations, the court addressed the merits because the Texas Supreme Court had specifically directed it to do so [Supreme Court mandate prevailed].
• The court issued a warning that using fictitious AI-generated citations ‘could be grounds for striking’ the brief [deterrent warning].
• The recusal argument was rejected because Suday’s supporting citations were fictitious [self-defeating hallucination].

“Because most of it seems to be fictitious, it appears Suday may have used an artificial intelligence tool in the preparation of her supplemental brief. While this could be grounds for striking the estate’s brief, we choose to address the merits as referred to us by the Texas Supreme Court.”

— Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio, 14 January 2026

The India Angle

Indian Law Equivalent: Under Rule 15 of the Bar Council of India Rules and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, submitting fabricated or non-existent case citations before any Indian court constitutes professional misconduct and contempt. The duty to verify cited authorities is absolute — AI does not create an exception.

Bar Council Rules: BCI Rule 15 (duty not to mislead the court) and Rule 33 (duty to conduct cases with integrity) are directly engaged when AI-generated hallucinated citations are filed. Disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar Council can result in suspension or bremoval from the roll.

Practical Advice for Indian Advocates: Verify every AI-generated citation on SCC Online, Manupatra, or IndianKanoon before filing. No AI tool — ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any Indian legal AI — reliably produces accurate citations. Treat AI output as a starting point for research, not a final product.

Quick Takeaways

• Courts can now explicitly attribute fictitious citations to AI tool use — creating a new category of documented AI misconduct.
• Even when a court does not strike an AI-hallucination brief, it documents the misconduct as grounds that could have supported striking.
• Indian family law and succession practitioners who use AI tools must be especially careful: fictitious citations in emotional, high-stakes cases are particularly damaging.