Michigan Court of Appeals Establishes Important Limits on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Litigation Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming how Michigan businesses and their attorneys conduct legal research, prepare documents, and manage litigation. Although AI technology can improve efficiency and reduce legal expenses, it also creates significant risks when information generated by these systems is inaccurate, misleading, or entirely fabricated. A recent published Michigan Court of Appeals decision makes clear that attorneys cannot rely on artificial intelligence without independently verifying the information submitted to a court. For Michigan businesses involved in commercial disputes, the decision highlights the importance of accuracy, professional oversight, and accountability when using AI-assisted legal services.
Please note this blog post should be used for learning and illustrative purposes. It is not a substitute for consultation with an attorney with expertise in this area. If you have questions about a specific legal issue, we always recommend that you consult an attorney to discuss the particulars of your case.
On June 17, 2026, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its published decision in Barber v Morawa, Docket No. 374773, arising from litigation in Oakland County Circuit Court. Although the underlying lawsuit involved medical malpractice rather than a commercial dispute, the court’s ruling has broader implications for attorneys representing Michigan businesses in contract disputes, shareholder litigation, employment matters, and other civil proceedings.
In Barber, the plaintiff’s attorney repeatedly submitted legal documents containing fabricated or unsupported citations generated through artificial intelligence. Some cited cases did not exist, while others were legitimate decisions that did not support the legal propositions attributed to them. Despite receiving warnings regarding these inaccuracies, counsel continued submitting problematic authorities, including in a subsequent attempt to correct earlier errors.
The Court of Appeals concluded that these repeated failures violated Michigan’s requirement that attorneys conduct a reasonable inquiry before submitting legal documents. The decision establishes that reliance on AI does not excuse an attorney’s failure to verify legal authorities or representations made to the court.
Michigan Court Rule 1.109(E)(5) requires attorneys who sign court documents to certify that they have read the documents, and that their factual and legal assertions are supported by a reasonable inquiry. This obligation applies regardless of whether the information originated from traditional legal research, a client, another attorney, or an artificial intelligence platform.
The rule imposes an objective standard, meaning an attorney’s sincere belief that information is accurate does not necessarily protect against sanctions. In Attorney General v Harkins, 257 Mich App 564, 576; 669 NW2d 296 (2003), the Michigan Court of Appeals explained that attorneys must undertake a reasonable investigation into the factual and legal foundations of their filings.
In Barber, the court applied these established principles to AI-generated legal research. It emphasized that lawyers remain responsible for confirming that cited cases exist, reviewing the actual decisions, and ensuring those decisions support the arguments presented. AI-generated research may assist legal professionals, but it cannot replace the independent judgment required under Michigan law.
The consequences of submitting false or unsupported information can extend beyond embarrassment or damage to professional credibility. Under MCR 1.109(E)(6), courts must impose an appropriate sanction when an attorney violates the certification requirements of MCR 1.109(E)(5). Available sanctions may include payment of reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred by an opposing party because of the improper filing.
In Barber, the Court of Appeals also determined that the attorney’s conduct justified sanctions under MCR 7.216(C), which addresses vexatious appellate proceedings. The court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine the actual damages and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, resulting from the improper appeal. Significantly, the court directed that the resulting monetary sanction be paid personally by the plaintiff’s attorney rather than the client.
The court also directed that its opinion be forwarded to Michigan’s Attorney Grievance Commission for possible investigation. The decision demonstrates that repeated AI-related errors can create financial and professional consequences beyond the underlying litigation.
Although Barber involved fabricated legal authorities, similar concerns arise when Michigan businesses use artificial intelligence to prepare materials relevant to commercial litigation. Contract disputes frequently involve purchase agreements, financial records, business communications, invoices, and representations concerning contractual performance. Inaccurate AI-generated summaries or descriptions of these materials can distort the factual record and undermine otherwise legitimate legal claims.
For example, a business pursuing a breach-of-contract claim might rely on AI software to summarize hundreds of communications between the contracting parties. If the technology incorrectly attributes statements, invents contractual obligations, or mischaracterizes important dates, those errors could influence litigation decisions or appear in court filings.
The Barber ruling does not establish that every AI-generated factual error automatically warrants sanctions. Rather, its reasoning reinforces the existing obligation to investigate factual assertions and verify their evidentiary support. Businesses and their attorneys should therefore distinguish between using AI to organize information and relying on its unverified output as evidence.
Michigan businesses increasingly rely on outside counsel, internal legal departments, and technology vendors to manage expensive litigation. AI-assisted document review and legal research may lower costs, but inadequate oversight can produce additional expenses, procedural disputes, and reputational harm.
A company defending a significant contract claim could incur unnecessary legal fees if its attorneys submit arguments based on nonexistent authorities. Similarly, unsupported factual representations may undermine confidence in the company’s position and distract from otherwise meritorious defenses.
It is important to distinguish an attorney’s personal responsibility from potential exposure faced by the business itself. In Barber, the court specifically directed that the sanctions be paid by counsel personally. Nevertheless, MCR 1.109(E)(6) permits appropriate sanctions against the signer, a represented party, or both, depending on the circumstances. Businesses therefore should not assume that attorney misconduct can never create consequences for the client.
Corporate executives should also recognize that the risks are not limited to courtroom filings. AI-generated contract analyses, internal investigation summaries, and litigation assessments can influence settlement decisions and business strategy even before litigation begins.
The practical lesson from Barber is not that attorneys or businesses must avoid artificial intelligence. Properly implemented, AI can help organize extensive records, identify potentially relevant documents, and accelerate preliminary legal research. However, effective use requires meaningful human verification and appropriate safeguards.
Michigan businesses should work with attorneys who independently confirm legal citations, review original documents, and verify factual representations before relying on AI-generated material. Companies should also establish internal procedures addressing confidentiality, accuracy, and the review of AI-assisted work involving sensitive business information.
These safeguards are particularly important in high-value commercial litigation, where inaccurate information can affect negotiations, discovery, motion practice, and judicial decisions. A reliable review process may require additional time initially, but it can prevent significantly greater expenses arising from defective filings or erroneous litigation strategies.
The published decision in Barber v Morawa provides an important warning to Michigan attorneys and their business clients: technological convenience does not eliminate established duties of accuracy, reasonable investigation, and professional responsibility.
For businesses involved in contractual disagreements, shareholder conflicts, or other commercial disputes, the most effective approach is to combine the efficiency of artificial intelligence with experienced legal judgment and careful verification.
As AI becomes increasingly integrated into business operations and litigation, Michigan companies should ensure that their legal representatives employ reliable research methods, verify supporting evidence, and maintain appropriate oversight. Doing so can reduce unnecessary litigation risks while preserving the legitimate advantages of emerging technology.
For businesses confronting complex commercial disputes, knowledgeable Michigan business litigation counsel can help evaluate potential claims, assess evidence, and develop litigation strategies that account for both established legal requirements and emerging technology-related risks.
Contact Tishkoff
Tishkoff PLC specializes in business law and litigation. For inquiries, contact us at www.tish.law/contact/.
Sources
1. Barber v Morawa, Michigan Court of Appeals, published opinion, June 17, 2026, Docket No. 374773 (Oakland County Circuit Court, LC No. 2023-199637-NH). https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-published/2026/374773.html
2. Michigan Court Rule 1.109(E)(5)–(6), Signature of Documents; Effect of Signature; Sanctions. https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/michigan-court-rules/court-rules-book-ch-1-responsive-html5.zip/index.html#t=Court_Rules_Book_Ch_1%2FCourt_Rules_Chapter_1%2FCourt_Rules_Chapter_1.htm
3. Michigan Court Rule 7.216(C)(1)–(2), Vexatious Proceedings; Authority of the Michigan Court of Appeals to Impose Sanctions and Award Expenses. https://www.courtrules.net/michigan/michigan-court-rules/rule-7-216
4. Attorney General v Harkins, 257 Mich App 564, 576; 669 NW2d 296 (2003) (reasonable inquiry and objective standard for attorney conduct). https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/attorney-general-v-harkins-893407131
5. Whiting v City of Athens, 170 F4th 455 (CA 6, 2026) (sanctions arising from fabricated citations, misrepresentations of the record, and unsupported legal arguments). https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0080p-06.pdf
This publication is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult counsel for advice on your specific circumstances.
Prepared by Tishkoff paralegal Kimberley Taschereau, Tishkoff PLC. Reviewed by Tishkoff PLC attorney William G. Tishkoff.