Ibach v. Stewart: AI-Hallucinated Citations as a Rule 28 Defect—Dismissal of Appeal and Appellate Sanctions Under Rule 38 and Inherent Authority

1. Introduction

In Ibach v. Stewart (Supreme Court of Alabama, Apr. 24, 2026), grandchildren Laurie Ibach and Mark Campbell appealed a Mobile Circuit Court summary judgment entered for their uncle, Bruce Stewart, in a family dispute over alleged fiduciary misconduct in the administration and amendment of two living trusts: the Betty L. Stewart Living Trust and the Edward T. Stewart Living Trust.

The underlying lawsuit asserted undue influence, lack of capacity, breach of trust, and tortious interference with an expected inheritance, with the trial court disposing of all claims on statute-of-limitations grounds. The Supreme Court, however, did not reach the merits. Instead, the case became a vehicle for the Court to address a rapidly emerging procedural and ethical problem: appellate briefs containing artificial-intelligence (“AI”) “hallucinations”—nonexistent cases, mangled citations, and fabricated quotations—presented as legal authority.

The Court held the appellants’ briefing was so deficient under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure that the appeal would be dismissed, and it imposed substantial sanctions on counsel under Rule 38, Ala. R. App. P., and the Court’s inherent authority.

2. Summary of the Opinion

  • Appeal dismissed: Because the appellants’ briefs cited “numerous invalid, inaccurate, and/or irrelevant” authorities—many nonexistent or misquoted—the Court found the briefs “wholly inadequate” under Rule 28, Ala. R. App. P., leaving “nothing to review.”
  • No “do-over” briefing: The Court denied a post-hearing motion to file “supplemental” briefs, emphasizing that the rules do not allow a party to cure fundamentally defective briefing after the briefing period closes.
  • Sanctions imposed: The Court found the appeal “frivolous” as presented and imposed sanctions under Rule 38 and inherent authority, including (i) attorney-fee reimbursement ($17,200), (ii) double costs payable to the Court, (iii) a filing restriction requiring co-signature by another attorney in good standing under Rule 25A, Ala. R. App. P., and (iv) referral to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline.
  • Withdrawal granted: Counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted; the Court indicated it would likely have disqualified him otherwise.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

A. Rule 28(a)(10) enforcement and waiver/abandonment doctrine

The Court anchored dismissal in the long-established principle that appellate courts are not obliged to develop arguments or research authorities for a party whose brief fails to cite valid, relevant authority as required by Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P. The opinion relies heavily on:

  • Jimmy Day Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Smith, 964 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2007) (quoted for the baseline Rule 28(a)(10) requirement and the proposition that insufficient authority permits the Court to disregard arguments).
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Motley, 909 So. 2d 806 (Ala. 2005), citing Ex parte Showers, 812 So. 2d 277 (Ala. 2001) (failure to comply with Rule 28(a)(10) is grounds to disregard arguments).
  • Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2003), quoting Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So. 2d 248 (Ala. 1994) (it is not the Court’s function to do a party’s legal research or build arguments from unsupported generalities), with Dykes citing Spradlin v. Spradlin, 601 So. 2d 76 (Ala. 1992).
  • White Sands Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So. 2d 1042 (Ala. 2008) (Rule 28(a)(10) requires discussion of facts and relevant legal authorities; otherwise arguments are waived).

While these cases are often used to treat issues as waived or to affirm due to inadequate briefing, Ibach extends their practical application: where the “authorities” are not merely sparse but fabricated at scale, the defect can justify dismissal as a sanction under the appellate rules.

B. “Frivolous appeal” sanctions under Rule 38

To justify sanctions, the Court invoked Rule 38, Ala. R. App. P., and its existing jurisprudence on appellate discretion to impose “just damages and single or double costs.” The opinion cites:

  • Walker v. Blackwell, 800 So. 2d 582 (Ala. 2001), quoting Gilbert v. Congress Life Ins. Co., 646 So. 2d 592 (Ala. 1994) (Rule 38 sanctions lie within the appellate court’s “sound judicial discretion”).
  • Powers v. Chandler Homes, LLC, 413 So. 3d 707 (Ala. 2012) and Guthrie v. Fanning, 329 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2020) (examples of monetary sanctions for frivolous appeals, including attorney fees).
  • Johnson v. Ives, 224 So. 3d 603 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (an appeal may be frivolous because it is presented in a way that “completely failed to comply” with Rule 28).

The doctrinal move is important: the Court characterizes the appeal as “frivolous” not necessarily because the underlying trust dispute lacked possible merit, but because the method of presentation—built on fabricated/misquoted authorities—was “manifestly insufficient as a matter of law.”

C. Inherent authority to manage proceedings

In addition to Rule 38, the Court relied on inherent judicial power to protect the integrity and efficiency of proceedings, citing:

  • Ex parte Segrest, 718 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 1998) (courts possess inherent “power to conduct judicial proceedings in an efficient and effective manner”).

This inherent-power rationale supported sanctions beyond ordinary merits disposition, including a prospective filing restriction keyed to Rule 25A, Ala. R. App. P.

D. AI “hallucinations” and the emerging national context

The Court expressly situated the case within a broader wave of AI-related citation fraud and negligence. It cited:

  • Johnson v. Dunn, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (N.D. Ala. 2025) and United States v. McGee, 806 F. Supp. 3d 1264 (S.D. Ala. 2025) (federal sanctions decisions addressing false AI-generated citations).
  • Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (quoted in Johnson v. Dunn for cataloging harms of fake authorities, including wasted opponent and court resources and systemic reputational damage).
  • Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 102 F.4th 1208 (11th Cir. 2024) (Newsom, J., concurring) (AI can aid legal work; the problem is failure to verify).

The Court’s message is nuanced: AI itself is not condemned; unverified AI output presented as authority is the actionable misconduct.

E. Separate writings as signals for future doctrine

The concurrences and dissents frame open questions for future cases:

  • Justice Cook agreed dismissal was warranted on these “particularly egregious” facts but suggested dismissal should generally be “one of the last tools used” and that sanctions should ordinarily target the lawyer rather than the client.
  • Justice Sellers would have affirmed (not dismissed), emphasizing agency principles and reluctance to punish clients for lawyer misconduct.
  • Justice Mendheim concurred in dismissal but questioned “double costs” payable to the Court under Rule 38’s text (which speaks of costs “to the appellee”) and flagged potential rulemaking needs; he also referenced Rule 70A(f), Ala. R. Civ. P., in cautioning against an appearance of perceived disrespect (a concern the authoring Justice later rejected in a separate concurrence).
  • Justice McCool’s concurrence referenced Whiting v. City of Athens, Tennessee, 170 F.4th 455 (6th Cir. 2026), underscoring that stern language about lawyers who cite fake cases is consistent with national appellate practice.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

A. Why fabricated citations are a Rule 28(a)(10) failure (not merely “bad briefing”)

The Court treated AI-hallucinated citations as categorically incompatible with Rule 28(a)(10)’s requirement of “citations to the cases, statutes, other authorities” relied on. A brief built on non-authorities cannot perform the basic function of appellate advocacy: providing verifiable legal support and narrowing issues for review. The opinion stresses that the Court cannot trust such submissions and cannot be placed in the role of independently validating each proposition or reconstructing arguments.

B. Why dismissal (rather than affirmance) was selected

Alabama appellate practice often resolves Rule 28 deficiencies by affirmance or waiver of inadequately supported arguments. Here, the Court framed dismissal as a sanction proportionate to the “particularly egregious facts”: widespread fabricated/misquoted authorities, continued misconduct after the appellee exposed the problem, and the resulting burden on both opposing counsel and the Court. The Court also tied dismissal to Rule 2(a)(2), Ala. R. App. P., which allows dismissal when an appeal is frivolous or when there is substantial noncompliance with the rules.

C. Why “supplemental” briefing was denied

The Court’s denial of supplemental briefing is a fairness and finality holding: permitting a party to replace a fundamentally defective brief after the briefing window closes would create an inequitable “second bite at the apple,” forcing the appellee to re-litigate the appeal and undermining orderly appellate administration.

D. Sanctions architecture

The sanctions were calibrated to three interests: (1) compensation to the victim (fee reimbursement), (2) deterrence (double costs and referral), and (3) protection of future proceedings (co-signature requirement under Rule 25A). The Court emphasized that trust in attorney submissions is indispensable and that resource strain makes tolerating fabricated authorities untenable.

3.3. Impact

A. Immediate doctrinal effect in Alabama appellate practice

  • Verification duty becomes operationally explicit: While no new “rule of professional conduct” was announced, the decision functions as a bright warning that unverified AI-citations can trigger dismissal and sanctions, not just adverse merits outcomes.
  • “Frivolous as presented” theory gains traction: The Court confirms that an appeal may be “frivolous” because the briefing method itself is legally unusable, even if underlying issues could be colorable in another posture.
  • No post-deadline cure for fabricated authorities: Parties should not expect permission to “fix” hallucinated citations by later re-briefing once the defect is exposed.

B. Litigation conduct and malpractice/discipline exposure

By ordering reimbursement, imposing filing restrictions, and formally referring the attorney to the Alabama State Bar, the decision raises the stakes of AI misuse beyond embarrassment: it can produce immediate monetary consequences, reputational harm, and professional discipline risk. It also signals to trial and appellate courts that strong remedies are institutionally supported when AI hallucinations contaminate filings.

C. Anticipated future disputes

The separate writings highlight likely future battlegrounds: (i) whether dismissal is appropriate when client fault is absent; (ii) the precise scope of “double costs” (and whether payable to appellee only); and (iii) whether Alabama should adopt rule amendments explicitly addressing AI-related certification/verification obligations and sanction ranges.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • AI “hallucinations”: Output generated by AI tools that appears plausible but is false—e.g., invented cases, mismatched citations, or fabricated quotes.
  • Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P.: Requires an appellant’s argument to be supported by proper citations to legal authority and the record. If the authority is nonexistent or misquoted, the argument is effectively unsupported.
  • Frivolous appeal (Rule 38): An appeal that lacks a legal basis or is presented in a legally insufficient manner; the court may impose damages and costs as a sanction.
  • Inherent authority: Courts have implied power to manage their proceedings and protect the judicial process, including imposing sanctions to prevent abuse and waste.
  • “Double costs”: A sanction increasing the ordinary taxable costs of an appeal; Ibach applies it as a punitive/deterrent measure, though a dissent questions whether Rule 38 authorizes payment to the Court rather than “to the appellee.”
  • Rule 25A co-signature restriction: A court-ordered condition that prevents further filings by a sanctioned lawyer unless another attorney in good standing signs, functioning as a gatekeeping safeguard.

5. Conclusion

Ibach v. Stewart is a landmark Alabama appellate decision on AI-related litigation misconduct. The Court treated fabricated or misquoted AI-generated citations not as harmless error but as a structural failure of appellate advocacy under Rule 28(a)(10), warranting dismissal of the appeal and significant sanctions. By combining Rule 38 remedies with inherent-authority measures (including prospective filing restrictions and bar referral), the opinion sets a clear expectation for Alabama practitioners: AI may be used as a tool, but lawyers must independently verify every citation and quotation before filing—because courts will enforce the rules with meaningful, case-dispositive consequences when that duty is breached.