Kruse v. Karlen — Missouri appeals court fines a pro se litigant $10,000 after 22 of 24 cited cases turn out to be AI fabrications (Mo. App. E.D., Feb. 2024)

Verification status: IN CHECKING — not publish-ready, not pending, not verified.

The problem

Molly Kruse sued her former employer for unpaid wages and won summary judgment; the company’s owner, Jonathan R. Karlen — a non-lawyer — appealed. He had been represented by counsel at trial but “proceeded pro se during the summary-judgment proceedings” and again on appeal. To prepare his appellate brief, “he hired an online ‘consultant’ purporting to be an attorney licensed in California,” at a fee that “amounted to less than one percent of the cost of retaining an attorney.”

What was built

The consultant’s brief was drafted with generative AI. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, found that it cited authorities that do not exist: “Only two out of the twenty-four case citations in Appellant’s Brief are genuine,” and the court “itemized each of the twenty-two inaccurate case citations.” Karlen “stated he did not know that the individual would use ‘artificial intelligence hallucinations’” — the opinion attributes the fabrications to AI but names no specific product.

The outcome

The court dismissed the appeal for “numerous fatal briefing deficiencies … including the submission of fictitious cases generated by artificial intelligence,” holding that a brief with bogus citations “represents a flagrant violation of the duties of candor.” Finding the appeal frivolous, it ordered under Rule 84.19: “Appellant is hereby ordered to pay Respondent damages towards appellate attorneys’ fees in the amount of $10,000.” (Distinct from — and not to be conflated with — the underlying $311,313.70 trial-court wage judgment, which is unrelated to the AI issue.)

Path to green

The figures are court-ordered and self-authenticating; no client-confirmation call is required for c1/c2. Before green, a human should confirm no motion for rehearing or transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court vacated the $10,000 award (the official Case.net docket blocks this host), and — if desired — obtain confirmation of whether the sum was paid. The specific AI product is not named in the opinion and is asserted by no claim.