The Arkansas Supreme Court has ordered a pro se petitioner to explain a case citation it cannot find and to show cause why he should not be sanctioned

Key takeaways

• The court says it is "concerned that this citation was hallucinated by artificial intelligence". It does not find that AI produced it.
• The order holds a pro se petitioner to the same standards as licensed attorneys on complying with the rules, citing Lucas v. Jones.
• It imposes no sanction. It orders a response, due 4:00pm on Thursday, October 15, 2026, on why he should not be sanctioned.
• We have not checked whether a response was filed or what the court did afterwards.

What did the Arkansas Supreme Court order, and why?

The court issued a per curiam order to show cause on October 1, 2026. While reviewing the petition, it says, it "discovered a citation to what appears to be a nonexistent case". On page 8 of his pro se petition for writ of mandamus, the petitioner, Andrew Simpson, cited Biscoe v. Williams, 373 Ark. 336 (2008), for the proposition that orders are void when a party commits fraud upon the court.

The court says no legal databases return any results for an Arkansas case with that title, and that the citation "leads to the middle of an unrelated case", Brown v. Brown, 373 Ark. 333, 284 S.W.3d 17 (2008). It concludes that because Biscoe v. Williams "does not appear to exist", it is concerned the citation was hallucinated by artificial intelligence. The caption lists the matter as an appeal from the Ashley County Circuit Court, Probate Division, No. 02PR-24-27.

What standard does the court apply to a pro se litigant?

The attorney standard. The order says a person who appears pro se before the court, or any court in the state, is "held to the same standards as licensed attorneys with respect to complying with the rules", citing Lucas v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 365, at 8. It adds that pro se litigants "must make arguments" that are "warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law", citing Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 11(a).

"Relying on nonexistent authority is a dereliction of that duty," the court says, citing Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs. v. Ward, 2026 Ark. 17, at 2. The order does not cite a separate AI rule, and it does not say what sanction it has in mind.

What must Mr. Simpson do, and by when?

The court orders him to respond and to provide a copy of Biscoe v. Williams, if it exists. If the case does not exist, he is ordered to explain how he learned of it, why he decided to cite it, and to provide good cause for why he should not be sanctioned for citing authority that does not appear to exist.

The response was due no later than 4:00pm on Thursday, October 15, 2026. Special Justice Cory Cox joins the order, Justice Wood concurs, and Justice Webb is not participating. The order does not set out the reasoning of the concurrence.

What does the order mean for lawyers and self-represented filers?

Our reading, not the court's: the order signals that this court may ask a filer to account for a citation it cannot locate, and that it does not treat a filer's pro se status as lowering the duty to cite real authority. The show-cause command is addressed to one petitioner in one case. The standard it applies, which the order says covers a person who appears pro se before this court or any court in the state, is one the court reiterates from earlier decisions rather than a new rule.

• Confirm that each cited case exists in a legal database or the reporter, and that the reporter citation leads to that case, before filing. Here the court found the citation led to a different case.
• Keep a note of where each authority came from, since the court asks the petitioner how he learned of the case.
• Treat a court's show-cause deadline as fixed. This order gave about two weeks.

What are the key dates and parties?

What we did not verify

What we opened: the official two-page order on the Arkansas judiciary opinions site, on 2026-10-25.

What we did not open: the petition itself, the docket, any response by Mr. Simpson, any later order, the cases the order cites (Lucas v. Jones, Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs. v. Ward, Brown v. Brown), and any Arkansas rule on AI. We have not independently searched for Biscoe v. Williams; we report what the court says. The deadline has passed and we do not know the outcome.

What we refuse to claim: that AI generated the citation (the court says it is concerned, not that it found), that any sanction has been imposed or will be, or that the show-cause command itself reaches anyone other than the petitioner.

Related briefings

• AI Regulation News hub
• North America AI regulation tracker
• AI court rules and rulings
• Attorneys and AI regulation
• Pennsylvania Superior Court on hallucinated citations by a pro se litigant
• Idaho Supreme Court on fabricated citations and no sanction
• Connecticut Supreme Court on generative AI citations and sanctions
• Florida 4th DCA show-cause order over AI-generated filings