According to the published opinion, a three-judge panel removed Kentucky-based attorney Steven N. Howe from John C. Farris' appeal of sentencing enhancements after the attorney admitted to using AI to prepare two briefs before the court.
As a result, the briefs contained legally erroneous content, the panel noted, including quotations not found in any legal authorities and misrepresentations of case law.
The panel said in the per curiam opinion that while new technologies "present significant promise for the legal field," legal professionals must be "clear eyed about technology's potential pitfalls."
"That mandate is especially critical in today's rapidly evolving artificial-intelligence landscape," the panel said.
Howe had previously claimed in a response to a show cause order by the court that he was "not familiar" with uploading documents into the CoCounsel program and that he requested his staff to do so.
But the "risks of reflexively relying on artificial intelligence in the practice of law" are "well documented," the panel said Friday.
"Attorneys should not utilize technology without knowing the ways in which it can be misused or contribute to inaccuracies," the panel said. "That remains true even when new tools are sponsored by trusted legal technology providers."
A Kentucky federal court had appointed Howe to represent Farris, who pled guilty to two counts of distribution of at least 50 grams of methamphetamine and one count of possession with intent to distribute the methamphetamine.
During his sentencing, the district court determined Farris qualified for more time on a prison sentence due to his "leadership role during underlying drug-trafficking activities."
Farris appealed the enhancement to the Sixth Circuit, which then authorized Howe to continue serving as Farris' attorney.
Howe filed an opening appeals brief and a reply brief on Farris' behalf. But the Sixth Circuit became suspicious that the briefs were at least partially generated by AI.
According to a show cause order the appeals court filed in late February, the clues included the opening brief's file name defaulting to "CoCounsel Skills Results" and the listed author in the document's metadata being "CoCounsel."
The opening brief also contained three quotations, two of which were repeated in the reply brief, that did not appear in their attributed sources, the court said.
The Sixth Circuit found the briefs also misrepresented two of the court's rulings from 2013 and 2022.
In a March 9 response to the court's show cause order, Howe admitted AI was used in preparing the briefs.
Howe said his office had acquired CoCounsel in August 2025, after Farris' district court proceedings concluded. He said one of his office staff had uploaded district court documents to the CoCounsel program to create a draft of the opening brief, after which Howe worked on the file for six hours. He did the same for the reply brief, according to his response.
Howe also noted in his response that the appeal was the "first time" he ever used CoCounsel "in this way for a court of appeals brief." Howe has also never been formally sanctioned by a court or disciplined by a bar association since he started practicing law in 1986, according to his response.
On Friday, the Sixth Circuit said Howe's "artificial-intelligence misstep" is just the latest the court has confronted. The panel said it was thus necessary to "reiterate attorneys' baseline ethical obligations" as they relate to AI use.
Attorneys who choose to use AI tools must do so "in a manner consistent with their ethical obligations," the panel said. Some considerations attorneys must make include reviewing and validating AI-generated content, considering whether to disclose the use of AI to their clients or to obtain informed client consent, and implementing firmwide policies for AI use, it said.
The panel added that new technologies are also "no substitute for tried-and-true safeguards managed by practicing attorneys."
It said Howe's reliance on staff, rather than himself or another attorney, to supervise the AI-generated work "fell short of his obligations as attorney of record."
That Howe's briefs cited real legal authorities as opposed to "hallucinations" with fake cases also "does not absolve him," the panel said and that "attorneys' professional duties demand more."
It said Howe's failure to verify the AI output still resulted in false quotations and legal arguments.
The panel also said Howe committed "inexcusable transgressions" that, among other consequences, required the court to use its resources to investigate the suspected AI improprieties.
In addition to removing Howe from Farris' representation, the court also locked the filed briefs and reset the case's briefing schedule.
The court concluded Howe should not be paid for his time spent working on the appeal and that the court's clerk should forward a copy of its opinion to the Sixth Circuit's chief judge to consider disciplinary proceedings under Sixth Circuit local rules.
Howe did not respond to a request for comment late Friday.
U.S. Circuit Judges Eric L. Clay, Julia Smith Gibbons and Whitney D. Hermandorfer sat on the panel for the Sixth Circuit.
The government is represented by Charles P. Wisdom Jr., Anthony J. Bracke and Carlton S. Shier IV of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
Farris was represented by Steven N. Howe of The Law Offices of Steven N. Howe.
The case is USA v. John Farris, case number 25-5623, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
--Editing by Lakshna Mehta.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
