A Colorado federal court has ordered one law firm to attach an AI Certification to its future filings after a quotation from a Tenth Circuit decision was found not to exist

Key takeaways

• The sanction is nonmonetary: an AI Certification on filings by the named firm and lawyer.
• The court said it could not know whether AI produced the quotation, and accepted that it came from counsel's own notes.
• The order warns that future infractions of this nature may bring harsher sanctions, including monetary sanctions.
• The sample certifications in the order are for illustrative purposes only.

What did the Colorado court find, and what was the error?

The court found a violation of Rule 11(b). The Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion (ECF No. 80) quoted language from an unpublished Tenth Circuit decision, Miller v. Spiers, 339 F. App'x 862 (10th Cir. 2009), that the court described as non-existent. The order says the violation is due to Mr. Krenning's admitted failure to verify that the cases cited in the motion stood for the propositions for which they were relied upon.

Mr. Krenning's declaration (ECF No. 106) said he used generative AI "primarily to help identify potentially relevant cases", then reviewed the cases himself, and that the quoted language came from his own notes and summaries. The court wrote that it "has no way of knowing" whether the quotation came from his drafting process or from AI, and accepted his representations as true. It also said it was "unpersuaded Mr. Krenning acted with any intent to deceive".

He said he sent the motion to his paralegal for filing without proofreading or citation review, and acknowledged that the error was "preventable".

What exactly must the AI Certification contain?

Paragraph 2 of the order says that "all filings submitted by the Law Office of Troy D. Krenning, LLC and/or individual counsel Troy D. Krenning shall contain an AI Certification" on the use, or non-use, of generative AI in preparing the filing. The order names ChatGPT, Harvey.AI and Google Gemini as examples of generative AI.

• The certification is signed by all individuals who contributed to the drafting of the filing.
• Where generative AI was used in any drafting, each individual certifies that any language drafted by AI, even if later edited by a human, was personally reviewed by the filer or another human for accuracy.
• That individual also certifies that all legal citations reference actual non-fictitious cases or cited authority.
• The certification does not count against page limitations.
• All filings remain subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and applicable ethical rules.

The order gives two sample certifications "for illustrative purposes only". One says generative AI was not used. The other says it was used, that the party was advised of and consented to such use, and that all cited authority was manually reviewed by counsel of record. The order does not say the party-consent statement is required.

Why did the court choose a nonmonetary sanction?

The court cited Rule 11(c)(4), under which a sanction "must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated". It then listed what it weighed: the infraction involved just one erroneous citation, and Mr. Krenning accepted responsibility, was candid with his clients, and stated a commitment to thoroughly reviewing the accuracy of his filings.

On that basis the court said monetary sanctions were too harsh. It added that it has "continuing concerns about counsel's future reliance on AI and the need to verify the accuracy of the research generated thereby", and called the certification a "very limited sanction". Paragraph 3 expressly warns that future infractions of this nature may bring harsher sanctions under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, or the court's inherent authority, including monetary sanctions.

What should litigators and firm risk managers do now?

The order imposes no duty on lawyers other than the named counsel, so the points below are our suggestions, not requirements of the order.

• Treat quotations as a separate check from case existence: confirm each quoted passage appears in the cited opinion, which is the failure the court identified.
• Decide who signs off on citation review before a filing goes to a paralegal for filing, since the declaration described a motion filed without that step.
• Record whether generative AI was used in drafting, and by whom, so a certification of the kind the court described could be given accurately.
• Check the local rules and standing orders of each judge you appear before, since this order is addressed only to the named counsel.

What are the key dates and parties?

What we did not verify

What we opened: the full five-page order, ECF No. 126, as filed on the public docket PDF, on 2026-10-25 (UTC).

What we did not open: the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 80), the order to show cause (ECF No. 101), the declaration (ECF No. 106), the decisions the order cites (Lexos Media IP, Mattox, Miller v. Spiers), later docket entries, any appeal, and any local rule or standing order of the court on AI. We rely on the order's own account of those filings.

What we refuse to claim: that AI generated the quotation, that the order applies to any lawyer other than the named counsel, that the certification has an end date, that the sample wording is mandatory, or that other courts have adopted this approach.

Related briefings

• AI Regulation News hub
• North America AI regulation tracker
• Attorneys and AI regulation
• Tenth Circuit proposed Rule 46.5 on generative AI certification
• Tenth Circuit published AI citation standard in Lichfield and Kubler
• Florida AI filing rule 2.515 and sanctions for attorneys
• Ninth Circuit AI sanctions and what filings require