In a significant ruling on May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma publicly reprimanded attorney Matthew Brett Reeves for misconduct involving the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to fabricate legal citations in court documents. This decision follows similar disciplinary actions against Reeves in Texas, Tennessee, and Alabama, raising important questions about the ethical use of AI in legal practice.
The case, cited as STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OBA v. REEVES, SCBD, stems from a series of violations that occurred when Reeves represented the Alabama Department of Corrections. He filed motions in federal court that included citations generated by AI without proper verification. This ruling highlights the court's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and the necessity for attorneys to uphold high ethical standards.
Background
The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Reeves after he faced public reprimands in other states for similar misconduct. The OBA filed documentation with the Oklahoma Supreme Court on December 2, 2025, following a public reprimand issued by the Texas Board of Disciplinary Appeals on November 4, 2025. Reeves was also publicly censured by the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility on December 15, 2025, and reprimanded by the Alabama State Bar on March 6, 2026.
The underlying issue began when Reeves, while representing the Alabama Department of Corrections, filed a motion for leave to take the deposition of an incarcerated person and a motion to compel. During court proceedings, it was revealed that he had fabricated several legal citations using AI technology, specifically ChatGPT. The plaintiff in the case raised concerns that these citations were not only incorrect but also entirely made up, leading to a sanctions order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
The Ruling
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that Reeves' actions constituted a violation of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically related to candor toward the tribunal and the duty to provide accurate legal representation. The court stated, "The careless use of generative artificial intelligence to 'save time' by not independently confirming citations is instead a waste of judicial resources and opposing party's time and money." This ruling emphasizes that attorneys must verify the accuracy of all citations they present in court.
The court's opinion noted that Reeves had previously been warned about the risks associated with using AI for legal research and that he ignored his firm's internal policies designed to prevent such misconduct. The judges concurred in the decision, emphasizing the need for accountability among legal professionals. The court stated, "Respondent's misconduct was particularly egregious given the repeated warnings from federal courts about the risks of bogus citations generated by AI."
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the legal profession, particularly as the use of AI technology becomes more common in legal practice. The court's decision serves as a cautionary tale for attorneys about the importance of verifying information generated by AI tools. It reinforces the principle that lawyers are responsible for the content of the documents they file in court, regardless of the source of that information.
Moreover, this case sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar situations involving AI-generated content in the future. By publicly reprimanding Reeves, the court sends a clear message that reliance on unverified AI outputs is unacceptable and that attorneys must exercise diligence in their work. This ruling may encourage other jurisdictions to adopt similar standards regarding the use of AI in legal practice, potentially leading to a more uniform approach across the country.
What's Next
Reeves has the option to appeal the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision, though details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence ongoing discussions about the ethical use of AI in law and could lead to further scrutiny of AI tools used in legal research and documentation.