From a recent ruling in the case of Kruse v. Karlen by the Missouri Court of Appeals, presided over by Judge Kurt Odenwald, alongside Judges Michael E. Gardner and Renée D. Hardin-Tammons, it was decided to dismiss the appeal made by Jonathan R. Karlen (“Appellant”) against Molly Kruse (“Respondent”). The court granted final summary judgment to the Respondent due to significant deficiencies in the briefing process that hindered a meaningful review, which included the submission of fictitious cases generated by artificial intelligence (“A.I.”). As a result of the frivolous nature of the appeal, damages were awarded to the Respondent as per Rule 84.19.
The court expressed particular concern over the numerous inaccuracies in the citations provided by the Appellant in their Appellate Brief. Out of twenty-four case citations, only two were found to be authentic. The majority of citations were either inaccurate or entirely fabricated, with examples like the nonexistent case of Smith v. ABC Corporation cited by the Appellant. The court highlighted that such misleading citations, including references to statutes and rules, misrepresented the law and undermined the integrity of the legal process.
In response to the submission of bogus citations, the Appellant offered an apology in the Reply Brief, attributing the errors to an online “consultant” posing as a licensed attorney. Despite the apology, the court emphasized that filing an appellate brief with false information, whether intentional or not, is a serious violation of legal standards and the duty of candor owed to the court. The court held that pro se litigants, while facing challenges, are expected to adhere to the same standards as represented parties, and the egregious errors in this case warranted the dismissal of the appeal.
Moreover, the court imposed damages of $10,000 on the Appellant for filing a frivolous appeal, emphasizing the importance of abiding by court rules and presenting valid arguments supported by genuine legal authority. The ruling serves as a reminder of the consequences of failing to meet the ethical and procedural obligations in legal proceedings.
