In Ellis v. McNeese, a decision authored by Kansas District Court Judge W. Lee Fowler (issued on April 22 but only recently posted on Westlaw), the plaintiff’s attorney succeeded in reinstating his client as a nursing student who had faced disciplinary action from Flint Hills Technical College due to a vaccine refusal grounded in religious beliefs. However, when it came to securing attorney fees—which are permitted under the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act—the attorney did not fare as well. The court determined, for several reasons, that the attorney would normally be entitled to around $100,000 in fees rather than the $300,000 he claimed, but then the award was further reduced:
On October 20, 2025, the Plaintiff’s counsel filed a document titled Opposition to Defendants Motion to Alter Judgment. In that filing, the Plaintiff’s counsel knowingly cited two cases, State v. Baker, 290 Kan. 842, 235 P.3d 424 (2010) and Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 110, 310 P.3d 1196 (2014), to support legal propositions that were inconsistent with the cited authorities. Additionally, there were no fewer than six references to Kansas cases that do not exist. When confronted with these misrepresentations and faced with a Motion for Sanctions, the Plaintiff’s counsel did not deny the allegations or explain the origin of the false citations; instead, he asserted that the legal propositions in his pleadings were correct and that his “citation irregularities were technical and clerical.”
Citations to nonexistent cases can never be treated as technical or clerical errors. They are not a matter of formatting or citation style. They are unprofessional and sanctionable. The Court suspects that the Plaintiff’s counsel used a generative artificial intelligence program to assist in drafting the filing, though the attorney did not admit as much. The response to the sanctions claim amounted to a mere “no harm, no foul.” Moreover, this is not the sole instance of the Plaintiff’s counsel submitting false citations to a district court. See Anderson v. Aldrich, Douglas County District Court Case No. DG-2025-CV-429, Memorandum Opinion dated March 13, 2026.
Kansas District Court judges must rely on the accuracy of the citations presented by counsel. The timetable for decisions at the district court level is measured in minutes, hours, or days. We do not have law clerks to review pleadings for citation errors or misrepresentations. We must depend on attorneys to act professionally when preparing and filing pleadings for the Court’s consideration. The Plaintiff’s actions have fallen short of that standard. Furthermore, these actions appear to violate Rule 3.3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. (Whether such violations are adjudicated is a matter for the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys.)
Additionally, the Court held a status or pretrial conference in this matter on January 29, 2026, to prepare for the trial of the attorney-fees claim. Defense counsel prepared a proposed journal entry for that hearing that included the recitation of orders issued in pending garnishment proceedings. On January 30, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel filed objections to the proposed journal entry and then proceeded to file a journal entry drafted by Plaintiff’s counsel, asserting that it had been approved by defense counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel did not have consent to file the stated journal entry. The factual scenario is described in the Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Order filed on January 30, 2026, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Not only was the submission of the proposed journal entry a violation of Rule 170 as it applies to journal entries, but Plaintiff’s counsel’s action also appears to constitute an additional violation of Rule 3.3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by claiming opposing counsel’s approval when it had not been obtained. The Court voided the offending journal entry by Memorandum Order dated February 2, 2026. On March 12, 2026, the Court approved and filed the journal entry for the aforementioned hearing.
District court judges must rely on the representations of counsel regarding approvals for journal entries filed in the electronic filing system. Often, an approval is indicated by a /S/ signature on the line. It is not unusual to receive twenty or thirty documents per day for review and approval; some dockets can generate more than a hundred filings on any given day. Many of these documents arrive after the hearing. Strict adherence to Rule 170 is mandatory and not optional….
The Plaintiff’s counsel initially performed well, effectively securing the relief needed for her client to complete school and graduate on time. As noted, the Court’s initial calculation of the attorney-fee award stood at $101,640.00.
However, the Court has concluded that it is appropriate to strike 50% of that fee as a sanction for the cited falsifications and misrepresentations noted above. The Plaintiff is awarded $50,820.00 for attorney fees incurred in this case. A Judgment shall be entered in favor of the Plaintiff for that amount.
While such a sanction may appear substantial to some, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s counsel violated the trust inherent in the attorney–client relationship and in the role of lawyers as officers of the court. The Court further orders that the Clerk of the District Court provide a copy of this Memorandum Order to the Kansas Board of Professional Responsibility for their consideration….
An appeal is pending; the plaintiff’s counsel’s brief addressing the fee issue can be read here.
