# United States v. Farris: a federal appeals court denies a lawyer his pay and removes him from the case over AI-fabricated quotations from Westlaw's CoCounsel

> In United States v. Farris (No. 25-5623), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sanctioned court-appointed criminal-defense attorney Steven N. Howe after his appellate briefs contained fabricated quotations attributed to real cases and misrepresented their holdings. The court's 'first tell' was the principal brief's file name — 'CoCounsel Skill Results,' after Westlaw's internal AI platform — and Howe admitted he had used artificial intelligence and filed without verifying the citations. Crediting his candor and clean 40-year record but finding 'inexcusable transgressions,' on April 3, 2026 the court ordered that Howe 'shall not be compensated under the Criminal Justice Act for his time spent on this appeal,' referred him for possible discipline and to the Kentucky Bar, and by a separate order removed him from the case. There is no monetary fine.

- Verification status: verified
- Case type: deployment
- Provider: Westlaw's CoCounsel — identified by the court from the principal brief's file name ('CoCounsel Skill Results') and by counsel's own admission of AI use; named as the identified/admitted tool, not adjudicated as the proven cause
- Client: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — United States v. Farris, No. 25-5623, PER CURIAM (Clay, Gibbons, Hermandorfer, JJ.); on appeal from E.D. Ky. (David L. Bunning, D.J.), Courts / legal (AI-governance honest-negative) (named)
- Sector: legal / US / cross
- Verified on: 2026-08-01
- Canonical URL: https://theinternetninja.com/stories/us-v-farris-6th-cir-howe-cocounsel-ai-fabricated-quotations-cja-compensation-denied-removed-2026/
- Source: The Internet Ninja (theinternetninja.com), independent verified-proof platform

## Outcomes

| Metric | Before | After |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Monetary sanction |  | None — no dollar fine; the sanction is the denial of Criminal Justice Act compensation for the appeal |
| Sanction imposed |  | Denial of all CJA compensation for the appeal + removal from the representation (separate order) + referral to the Chief Judge (Local Rule 46) and to the Kentucky Bar Association |
| AI tool identified |  | Westlaw CoCounsel (via the 'CoCounsel Skill Results' file name and counsel's own admission) |

## Verification method

Independent-origin appellate document. Primary is the published Sixth Circuit opinion (File Name 26a0105p.06, 6pp), retrieved from the official Sixth Circuit opinions host and byte-tied to the earliest contemporaneous Wayback capture (sha1-b32 LEJB27GDICI33B6ZZBNV3BV3ZTX7AL3U = CDX digest, capture 20260404171300). The sanction package is corroborated by three mutually independent archive-bound newsrooms (Reason/Volokh, EDRM, The Dallas Express); the Westlaw CoCounsel identification by Reason/Volokh + EDRM — two_independent on both critical claims.

## Full case file

## The problem
Steven N. Howe was appointed under the Criminal Justice Act to represent John C. Farris in a
criminal-sentencing appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On its initial
review, the court began to suspect Howe's briefs "were generated, at least in part, by
artificial-intelligence software." As the opinion puts it, "The first tell was the file name of
the principal brief: 'CoCounsel Skill Results.' CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw's internal
artificial-intelligence platform." A substantive review then turned up three problematic
citations: the briefs' "purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources," and
they misrepresented the holdings of two real Sixth Circuit decisions, *United States v. Washington*,
715 F.3d 975 (6th Cir. 2013), and *United States v. Anthony*, 280 F.3d 694 (6th Cir. 2002).

## What was built
This is not a technology deployment; it is an AI-governance outcome. After a February 23, 2026
show-cause order, "By his own admission, Howe used artificial intelligence to draft the briefs in
this case and then filed them without properly verifying the cited legal authorities." Howe
explained that "he directed an unnamed 'staff' member to upload district court documents to
Westlaw's CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the principal brief," that his office had
acquired CoCounsel only in August 2025, and that "he has never been disciplined over his 40-year
career." The court credited that response — "We appreciate Howe's timely response to the Court's
show-cause order as well as his candor in acknowledging his improper use of artificial
intelligence" — but held that the distinction between real cases with fabricated quotes and
outright invented cases makes no difference: "That Howe's briefs cited real legal authorities—as
opposed to 'hallucinations' featuring fictitious cases—does not absolve him."

## The outcome
On April 3, 2026, in a per curiam opinion recommended for publication (Clay, Gibbons, and
Hermandorfer, Circuit Judges), the court concluded that "Howe committed inexcusable transgressions
during the appellate phase of this case" and imposed a set of non-monetary sanctions. First,
"Howe shall not be compensated under the Criminal Justice Act for his time spent on this appeal."
Second, the clerk was directed to forward the opinion to the Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit to
consider disciplinary proceedings under Local Rule 46, and to serve it on the Eastern District of
Kentucky and the Disciplinary Clerk for the Kentucky Bar Association. Third, by a separate order
the same day, the court stated "we remove Howe from further representation of Farris," locked the
briefs he had filed, and reset the briefing schedule. There is no dollar fine. Three mutually
independent newsrooms corroborate the sanction — Reason/The Volokh Conspiracy (which reproduces
the order), EDRM ("Sanctions were imposed, including denial of compensation for time spent on the
appeal, referral for possible disciplinary action"), and The Dallas Express ("Howe not be
compensated for his work under the Criminal Justice Act, removed him from the case, and referred
the matter for possible disciplinary action").

## Path to green
The origin is a published federal appellate opinion — self-authenticating; no client-confirmation
call is booked against the court, and no green badge is claimed here. There is no monetary figure
to confirm. Before any human sign-off, the checker should confirm the April 3, 2026 opinion has
not been disturbed by rehearing or en banc review (Sixth Circuit docket, No. 25-5623). Westlaw's
CoCounsel is named as the tool identified from the brief's file name and by Howe's own admission;
the court did not run a forensic determination pinning the fabrications to CoCounsel, and no claim
in this record asserts one.