On multiple occasions, in multiple filings and hearings, and in response to multiple questions and orders, Mr. Watkins has intentionally misled the court. Rather than taking responsibility for his actions, Mr. Watkins has feigned contrition, obfuscated the truth, changed his stories when it suits him, and attempted to blame others for his own professional misconduct. [...] The court finds that the following sanctions are necessary to rectify the misconduct here and vindicate judicial authority: (1) temporary suspension of Mr. Watkins from practice in the Northern District of Alabama for a period of three months, (2) disqualification of Mr. Watkins and Burrill Watkins from further participation in this case, (3) referral of Mr. Watkins to applicable licensing authorities, (4) payment (joint and several by Mr. Watkins and the firm) of the defendants' attorney's fees incurred directly because of the misconduct, and (5) a public reprimand of Mr. Watkins and Burrill Watkins.
Every other fabricated-citation case here is a finding of carelessness: somebody did not check. This one is a finding that the lawyer lied about it afterwards, and it is the reason the order runs to 162 pages. Joshua Watkins used ChatGPT and filed a brief with a case that does not exist and quotations that appear nowhere in the decisions they were attributed to. What the court spends most of the order on is not that. It is what he said once it came to light, across multiple filings, multiple hearings and multiple direct questions from the bench. Decided 31 March 2026. A public reprimand of Watkins and his firm, published in the Federal Supplement; a copy of the order served within ten days on every client, opposing counsel and presiding judge in every case either of them is in, and on every lawyer at the firm; both disqualified from the case; referral to the Alabama State Bar; and 47,056.90 US dollars in fees, split 11,453 to one set of defendants and 35,603.90 to the other. The court also found a three-month suspension from practice in the district necessary. It is worth reading beside the Sullivan & Cromwell letter on this page, which is the other end of the same situation: the difference between the two outcomes is almost entirely what each of them did on the day they were caught.
