Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Carrie E. Parker, Legal Editor
Luzianne Jones, Design & Publishing Editor

PUBLISHED BY: Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

PUBLICATION DATE: October 30, 2026

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 10

FEATURE ARTICLE: Time, Rules and Reform

The last major reform of the Rules of Professional Conduct occurred more than a quarter of a century ago. Much in the world of law has changed radically since then. Law firms are undergoing massive changes financially, technologically, and even structurally, with greater lawyer mobility and, in some cases, huge earnings. A few law firms have become larger than many of their clients. Twenty-five years ago, so-called “baby boomers” were leading law firms. Some continue to do so, but younger generations, with very different ideals and values, have replaced them in many firms. This makes one wonder whether it is time for the Bar to enter a period of self-reflection and evaluation and undertake a thorough reexamination of the Rules to see if and how they need reform and updating.

The LEMR contributors would recommend attention to a few specific areas.

. . .

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

NEW AUTHORITY: Attacking Judges & Recusal

In our increasingly litigious and angry society, judges have been coming under recent attacks both by lawyers and the public. One of the ways in which these attacks manifest themselves is demands that judges recuse themselves from cases. The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee issued two formal opinions during August and September 2026, which both illustrate the problems judges face and one state’s way of dealing with them. The facts in both cases present familiar problems.

In Published Opinion 2026-22 the Opinion outlines the factual basis for its analysis as follows:

The Requester is a circuit court judge. The Requester has presided in custody and protective order proceedings involving a self-represented litigant. The litigant has now moved to disqualify the Requester and every other active judge and magistrate in the Requester’s jurisdiction. In the motion, the litigant describes the “entire bench” as “future DEFENDANT [sic] in Federal Court” and refers to what appears to be a case number in in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The litigant also attaches to the motion electronic mail messages that purport to confirm the litigant’s filing of complaints against the Requester and other judges with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities. The Requester asks specifically whether recusal is required based on the litigant’s disclosure that the litigant has filed an action in federal court or a judicial disabilities complaint against the Requester.

In Published Opinion 2026-28, the Committee discusses another scenario involving a request for a broad requirement for recusal:

The Requester relates that an attorney appeared before the Requester for the first time since the Requester’s appointment to the bench and orally moved that the Requester recuse from the attorney’s case that day and from all future cases in which the attorney appears. The attorney stated that the attorney had actively opposed the Requester’s appointment and had openly contacted members of the judicial nominating commission and anyone else who would listen regarding the attorney’s opposition to the judge’s appointment. The attorney also described what the attorney characterized as a contentious professional relationship with the Requester over the years and identified criticisms and allegations the attorney had previously expressed concerning the Requester’s work ethic, ethics, honesty, candor, and professional conduct when the Requester was an attorney.

Prior to the hearing, the Requester knew the attorney had contacted at least one member of the judicial nominating commission, but the Requester was not advised of the substance of the attorney’s communications, other than that they were unfavorable. The Requester was not previously aware of the full extent or nature of the attorney’s opposition as the attorney described at the hearing, did not share the belief that they had a contentious professional relationship, and categorically denied the allegations of professional impropriety.

Following a recess, the Requester stated on the record that the Requester believed the Requester could be fair and impartial and did not have personal knowledge of all the matters the attorney had described. The Requester further stated that, even after hearing the attorney’s allegations and criticisms, the Requester believed the Requester could preside fairly and impartially over matters involving the attorney. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Requester advised the parties that another member of the court would resolve the matter scheduled for that day and that the Requester would seek an ethics opinion on whether future recusal is appropriate or required. The Requester submitted an audio recording of the proceeding.

In both situations, the alleged grounds for recusal rely on the actions of the litigants over which the judges had no control.

The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee took the opportunity presented by these scenarios to explain the basis for recusing a judge with reference to the following provisions in the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct:

Maryland Rule 18-101.2 provides in part:

(a) Promoting Public Confidence. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.

(b) Avoiding Perception of Impropriety. A judge shall avoid conduct that would create in reasonable minds a perception of impropriety.

Maryland Rule 18-102.2(a) makes clear that “[a] judge shall uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties of judicial office impartially and fairly.”

Maryland Rule 18-102.7 requires that “[a] judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge unless recusal is appropriate.”

Maryland Rule 18-102.11(a) addresses disqualification and provides in part:

(a) A judge shall recuse in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including the following circumstances:

1. The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning … a party’s attorney…

The Committee explained that these rules create two tests to see whether recusal is warranted: an objective test and a subjective test. The subjective test requires that the judge to examine her own feelings and beliefs and determine whether recusal is necessary. The objective test looks to the principle that a judge’s actions avoid the “appearance of impropriety,” normally involving the judge’s prior actions or interactions or the judge’ family or business or social connections that might give rise to doubt of her impartiality. It is a sensible approach, and it is consistent with the rules in most states.

Both Maryland opinions are excellent guides for judges and lawyers confronted with recusal issues.

ETHICS & MALPRACTICE RESEARCH TIP: New Article on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

1.) Symposium, Upholding the Rule of Law in a Backsliding Democracy: Taking Stands, Pushing Back, and the Role of the Public, 54 Hofstra L. Rev. 233 (2026).

Since the days of Monroe Freedman, Hofstra Law School has been a leader in teaching legal ethics. This symposium of leading scholars of legal ethics is timely.

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: Annals of Incivility

Sir John Fortescue-Aland was disfigured by a nose which was purple, and hideously misshapen by morbid growth. Having checked a ready counsel with the needlessly harsh observation, “Brother, brother, you are handling the case in a very lame manner,” the angry advocate gave vent to his annoyance by saying, with a perfect appearance of sang-froid, “Parden me, my lord; have patience with me, and I will do my best to make the case as plain as—as—the nose on your lordship’s face.” In this case the personality was uttered in hot blood, by a man who deemed himself to be striking the enemy of his professional reputation.

— John Cordy Jeaffreson, A Book about Lawyers 325 (1867).

Incivility in the legal profession obviously is not a new phenomenon.

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 10

About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 26 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.

We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.

When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.

The post Legal Ethics & Malpractice Reporter, Vol. 7, No. 10 appeared first on Home.

Author: Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief

Legal Editor: Carrie E. Parker

This article is featured in Volume 7, Number 10 of the Legal Ethics and Malpractice Reporter, published October 30, 2026.

The last major reform of the Rules of Professional Conduct occurred more than a quarter of a century ago. Much in the world of law has changed radically since then. Law firms are undergoing massive changes financially, technologically, and even structurally, with greater lawyer mobility and, in some cases, huge earnings. A few law firms have become larger than many of their clients. Twenty-five years ago, so-called “baby boomers” were leading law firms. Some continue to do so, but younger generations, with very different ideals and values, have replaced them in many firms. This makes one wonder whether it is time for the Bar to enter a period of self-reflection and evaluation and undertake a thorough reexamination of the Rules to see if and how they need reform and updating.

The LEMR contributors would recommend attention to a few specific areas.

Lawyer Competence & Training

Over the past few years, lawyers have learned that use of AI is not a simple matter and that lawyers must acquire skills such as prompt writing and result verification. But most states’ rules of professional conduct are relatively vague about mandatory CLE and technology training. Similarly, while law schools are attempting to provide adequate training in AI skills to law students, not all law schools have the qualified teachers necessary to impart AI expertise. Much of what law students and lawyers know about AI usage is based on CLE programs, which vary in quality as well. More importantly, this situation does not seem to be changing quickly enough.

The foundation for requiring AI competence is Rule 1.1. Kansas Comment 8 to KRPC 1.1 discusses technological understanding:

To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.

But this gives very little guidance to what technical competence in AI means.

In practice, what that means is that guidance for lawyers using AI comes primarily from judicial decisions and advisory opinions. However, judicial opinions have so far focused primarily on what lawyers should not do with AI, especially hallucinations rather than what lawyers must do and how to do it. Judicial opinions are also often slow to emerge and vary from court to court. Advisory opinions may be sought and received more quickly, but they are not authoritative. The same is true for private experts’ opinions.

One possible solution to this problem is for state supreme courts to issue detailed guidelines about Lawyer use of AI and, after feedback from the Bar, add provisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct that include detailed guidance as to what adequate technology training is necessary to achieve technical competence under Rule 1.1.

A related issue to supplementation of Rule 1.1 is the current inadequacy of Rule 5.1 to deal with supervision. This rule explicitly states that lawyers supervising other lawyers have a responsibility to “supervise” the work of other lawyers to ensure that the supervised lawyers are complying with the rules of professional responsibility:

(b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

(c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer’s violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if:

(1) the lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or

(2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

Under current Rules, it is unclear what is necessary to trigger supervisors’ obligations over the supervision of writing AI prompts or verifying AI produced documents. Here again a clear standard would be instructive.

Fees in the Twenty-First Century

The current rules about fees have changed little in the past several decades. The current model focuses on hourly based fees, contingent fees, in limited circumstances, and on transactional fees. The focus for most litigation and many non-litigation cases is on hourly billing. In most cases lawyers prefer hourly billing because the risk of failure is upon the clients since they will be paid whether or not the case is successful. In addition, hourly billing is easier for all involved and simple to understand. But the entire financial structure of firms who use hourly billing depends on this the notion that the more they work and can bill for that work, the more income they can earn.

AI has raised all sorts of difficulties for this model because AI can work (albeit not always well) in a fraction of the time it takes a human to do the same work. If firms can simply bill for the time the AI is used, then income may drop precipitously. The simplest answer, to raise the cost of AI use by turning it into a “profit center” runs counter to the prohibition against profiting from external services set forth in ABA Formal Opinion 93-379. Although this opinion, like all ABA ethics opinions is advisory rather than authoritative, adopting a fee structure not in compliance with the opinion is risky.

Alternatives to traditional hourly billing, often referred to as “value billing” are now being attempted by many law firms throughout the U.S. Commentators have mixed views on the ethical dangers of such fees. Certainly, given the age of current Rule 1.5, a concerted effort to revise the rule is called for to give lawyers greater clarity on billing in the “age of AI.”

Civility

Periodically lawyers become concerned that civility at the Bar has declined sufficiently to reassess whether specific lawyer conduct that does not rise to being sanctionable under the Rules of Professional Conduct should be. Some states (including Kansas) have enacted civility rules but not included them in sanctionable professional conduct rules. But virtually every state Bar has recognized the need for civility. Shelly Dryer, former president of the Missouri Bar Association, has said:

Incivility can foster a culture that decreases job satisfaction and declines the overall quality of life. I think most of us can remember when a colleague treated us with rude, hateful, or aggressive behavior, and how it made us feel. I certainly can think of times when I received a contentious comment, email, or letter and found myself being angry or upset. And if we are honest, many of us, myself included, can recall a time when we were rude, abrasive, or curt to another lawyer. It may not have even been about the case or the other lawyer but instead about something completely unrelated, like maybe receiving bad news that morning. Each of us is doing the best we can, albeit each day our best may look different.¹

Unfortunately. The problem of incivility of lawyers to other lawyers, to judges and court personnel, and to media and the public does not seem to be improving. Given that non-sanctionable civility codes do not appear to work, perhaps the Bar and the judiciary might reconsider whether certain behavior needs to be prohibited such that a violation of those standards could be punished.

We do not call for broad incivility rules to be included in a revised Rules of Professional Conduct, but, rather, specific narrowly targeted rules to make sure that all lawyers and judges realize certain forms of incivility are simply not acceptable.

¹https://news.mobar.org/help-through-civility

READ THE FULL ISSUE OF LEMR, Vol. 7, No. 10

About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 25 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.

We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.

When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.

The post Time, Rules and Reform appeared first on Home.

Webinar Time: 12:00–12:50 p.m.

Location: Zoom

Please join your Kansas and Missouri Bar colleagues for a complimentary CLE webinar: The Lawyer’s Duty to Report Misconduct

Sponsored by Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Approved for 1.0 hour of ethics CLE credit in Kansas & Missouri

REGISTER NOW

Resources

• • PARTICIPATION GUIDE

Program Description

This CLE explores the ethical challenges that arise when supervising attorneys and subordinate lawyers come from different generations, professional cultures, and levels of technological fluency. Using the Rules of Professional Conduct as the framework, the program will examine how generational related differences if left unaddressed, can create supervisory risks, competencies gaps, and communication barriers. These generational differences can especially arise in digital discovery, social media use, remote practice platforms, delegation of duties, and workplace respect. Attendees will gain practical strategies for ethical compliance, fostering an inclusive workplace, and harnessing the best attributes of the generations.

Webinar Instructions (Registration, Participation, CLE Credit)

Notice to first-time participants and any who have previously encountered technical or credit-related issues: This webinar will be hosted via Zoom. To ensure a smooth experience and CLE credit eligibility, please review our Webinar Participation Guide and follow the instructions closely. Failure to do so may prevent you from joining and/or receiving participation credit for this webinar.

About the Presenters

Dr. Michael H. Hoeflich | Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Kansas School of Law

Michael Hoeflich holds degrees from Haverford College, Cambridge University, and Yale Law School. He taught at the University of Illinois from 1980–1988, was dean of the Syracuse University College of Law from 1988-1994, and was dean at the University of Kansas School of Law from 1994–2000. Hoeflich is the author or editor of more than 25 books and 149 articles. He previously served as the director of the M.S. in Homeland Security: Law & Policy degree program at KU Law. He is the principal investigator on a five-year, $1.5 million Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence grant to the University of Kansas. In 2021, Hoeflich was the recipient of a Higuchi-KU Endowment Research Achievement Award, the state higher education system’s most prestigious recognition for scholarly excellence. Hoeflich received the Balfour Jeffrey Award in Humanities & Social Sciences for his significant research contributions to legal history and ethics.

Christine P. Rosengreen | Attorney, Joseph, Hollander & Craft

Kansas City family law attorney Christine Rosengreen practices in all areas of family law, including divorce, paternity, modification, guardianship, Guardian ad Litem, and adoption. Christine is also a Certified Family Law Mediator for the state of Missouri.

Samantha “Sammi” Fisher | Attorney, Joseph, Hollander & Craft

Samantha Fisher represents professionals and their practices in matters involving licensure, compliance, administrative and regulatory defense, health and hospital law, and civil litigation involving insurance defense and business disputes.

REGISTER NOW

JHC offers free CLE programs tailored to members of the Kansas and Missouri Bars at least quarterly. Visit our Ethics page for more information and to subscribe to our email news list, which receives CLE invitations and our monthly ethics newsletter.

The post Generations in the Law Firm: Ethical Aspects of Law Firm Demographics: a Free CLE Webinar appeared first on Home.

Christine Pina Rosengreen

Christine P. Rosengreen is a family law attorney located in Kansas City, MO. Ms. Rosengreen practices in all areas of family law, including but not limited to, divorce, paternity, modification, guardianship, Guardian ad Litem and adoption. A life-long advocate for children and families, she is a Certified Family Law Mediator for the State of Missouri.

Read More →

Dividing Retirement Accounts and Protecting Your Financial Future

At the end of a marriage, both spouses need to disentangle their financial futures from one another. You have likely built shared accounts, or worked with a similar strategy to save for retirement. Now, you have the job of protecting yourself for the future, while acknowledging contributions made during the marriage.

If you need assistance safeguarding your retirement savings while coming to a fair conclusion, a Kansas City divorce attorney with Joseph, Hollander & Craft may be able to help. Retirement account division can be a complex, and sometimes emotional area of family law. Working with an experienced and professional attorney can help break up the log jam and ensure that the entire financial picture is taken into account during a divorce.

Click or Call to Schedule a Confidential Consultation.

Are Retirement Accounts Considered Marital Property In Kansas City?

Retirement funds are typically considered marital assets in both Missouri and Kansas. The question of whether retirement accounts are marital or separate property is usually answered based on the date of contribution. In general, contributions made before the date of the marriage or after the date of legal separation are separate property. However, contributions made over the course of the marriage as well as growth due to interest can be included in a divorce judgment.

Calculating the Marital Portion and Division of Retirement Assets

Both Kansas and Missouri courts follow the principle of equitable division of assets. As equitable division states, this means that retirement assets will not necessarily be divided equally, but instead fairly. Therefore, you do not have to split the contents of your retirement plans 50/50, but the judge will ask for you to account for contributions made over the course of the marriage. Other than the length of your marriage, some factors that can influence how your accounts are divided might include:

• Whether one spouse put their career on hold during the marriage for childcare, to support a family business, care for in-laws, etc.
• The age and health of both spouses.
• Each spouse’s future earning capacity, including education and prior employment.

Property division begins by calculating the marital portion. In order to avoid overpaying your ex-spouse, your Kansas City family law attorney will divide out the value of contributions made to your accounts prior to the marriage, as well as after the date of your separation. In order to do so, you may need to provide documentation like your marriage certificate, account information, employment documentation, proof of participation in the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, as well as proof of separate residences, if separation took place prior to filing for divorce. Your divorce attorney will also account for any additional legal rights established by pre or postnuptial agreements between spouses when calculating what is subject to division.

Dividing Retirement Accounts

Retirement accounts are divided in different ways, depending on the type of account.

401k and Defined Contribution Plans

In defined contribution plans like Roth IRAs and 401ks, the premarital balance will be deducted from the current balance. Market growth will also be separated out into premarital portions as well as postmarital, with postmarital growth subject to division. Both spouses’ 401ks are subject to division if both have been employed during the marriage.

Pensions and Defined Benefit Plans

The most common pension valuation method is using coverture. The coverture formula divides value based on the months of your marriage that took place during your ongoing employment. This creates a marital fraction of the pension plan that can be considered during a divorce.

The coverture fraction tends to assume a deferred distribution plan to your future ex-spouse, once you retire. While this is often the simplest and lowest up-front cost option, it does require some degree of continued cooperation between spouses. For this reason, some divorcing couples opt for immediate offset. In this approach, an actuary will calculate the current, lump sum value of the marital portion of a pension. Once that figure is reached, one spouse can “buy out” the other with home equity, cash, or other on-hand assets. Immediate offset is often recommended for couples who want no continued contact between the other, or with one spouse who has been out of the work force and needs a tangible settlement.

Many spouses undervalue pension benefits in a divorce, which can lead to one spouse receiving less than they should for the contributions that they made during the length of a career. Military and public pensions, such as being part of the public school retirement system, can also create complications. These details vary across Missouri vs Kansas law, making it important to account for state differences in a Kansas City divorce. For instance, while KPERS plans are considered divisible, the Missouri Public School System does not allow for division of PSRS pensions if a spouse opted to earn them in lieu of Social Security credits. You will need to work with a law firm that is experienced and established in the Kansas City metro area to avoid errors in dividing defined benefit plans.

QDROs, DBOs, DROs, and COAPs: Orders Used to Divide Retirement Accounts in Kansas City

In order to divide the funds without triggering tax penalties and complications, an attorney will draw up a legal document, usually a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for employees in the private sector. This must be approved by the plan administrator as well as the court. Mistakes in a QDRO can lead to delayed distributions, additional costs, tax liability, and rejected orders. Other considerations include what kind of retirement accounts you and your spouse hold. Depending on your specifics, you may need a Division of Benefits Order (DBO) for Missouri public plans, a Domestic Relations Order (DRO) for Kansas public plans, and a Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP) for federal plans. Kansas City divorces are relatively unique in that all of these orders can come into play in one marriage, for two spouses who work across state lines or one spouse who is an employee within a different state pension system.

Click or Call to Schedule a Confidential Consultation.

Tax Implications and Planning for Your Financial Future

Early withdrawal from retirement accounts can trigger serious tax consequences and costs. Early withdrawal penalties make a divorce much more expensive than it needs to be in Kansas City. You can face up to 10% IRS early withdrawal penalty, being pushed into a much higher tax bracket the same year as you first file singly, and even court sanctions if a family law judge believes you are attempting to remove or hide retirement assets.

One of the most important parts of a divorce is accounting for your own financial future. This can be a mindset shift for some former spouses who are used to filing jointly and receiving all of the legal benefits of marriage. Joseph, Hollander & Craft will take the time to address these concerns and ensure that your divorce fully accounts for not only your ex-spouse’s demands, but also your own needs. Our Kansas City divorce attorneys are skilled legal advocates who prioritize protecting your privacy, financial information, and interests.

Negotiation Strategies for Dividing Retirement Assets

There may be options on the table to negotiate with a former spouse that a divorce attorney can help you find. Dividing property can also look like:

• Offsetting other assets instead of splitting accounts: For instance, in lieu of splitting a 401(k), one spouse might keep the family home, part of a valuable collection, or other assets. High asset divorces often are able to find swifter compromises than retirement account division, since there are more options immediately available for negotiation.
• Rolling distributions into recipient IRAs when possible: Rollovers are simplified options that sidestep the need for a formal QDRO. However, only IRAs, not 401(k)s, are eligible for rollover distributions.
• Modeling long-term retirement income outcomes: A marriage is a long-term investment in a shared future. During a divorce, your attorney can account for these predictions when calculating your settlement. For instance, spousal maintenance payments are one area with more flexibility in negotiations than dividing a 401(k). Additionally, there are other considerations such as the federal Social Security 10 year rule that can adjust your financial picture.

How Our Kansas City Divorce Attorneys Can Help With Dividing Retirement Accounts

Joseph, Hollander & Craft has a proven track record of professionalism and results in the Kansas City metro area. We offer hands-on, compassionate assistance for Kansas City residents who need help with divorce and planning for their own financial futures. If you need help from a Kansas City divorce lawyer, contact us today to get started.

The post Dividing 401(k)s and Pensions in a Kansas City Divorce appeared first on Home.

Christine Pina Rosengreen

Christine P. Rosengreen is a family law attorney located in Kansas City, MO. Ms. Rosengreen practices in all areas of family law, including but not limited to, divorce, paternity, modification, guardianship, Guardian ad Litem and adoption. A life-long advocate for children and families, she is a Certified Family Law Mediator for the State of Missouri.

Read More →

If you’ve reached the decision to file for divorce in Kansas or Missouri, then the next steps are going to be consequential for you and your family. Knowing the basics of divorce will help you to not only anticipate forthcoming divorce proceedings but develop a comprehensive strategy for seeking the best possible outcome. Working with an experienced attorney is the best way to understand and apply Kansas City divorce laws to your case. Trust the steady guidance of Joseph, Hollander & Craft.

Click or Call to Schedule a Confidential Consultation.

Divorce in Kansas City: a Quick Overview

Before you can file for divorce in Kansas City, you need to meet the state residency requirements of either Kansas or Missouri. A Kansas divorce requires that one spouse be a state resident for at least 60 days prior to filing. In Missouri, meanwhile, one spouse must be a resident for at least 90 days before filing.

In Kansas, the earliest that the court will grant a divorce is 60 days after the divorce petition is filed. The minimum is 30 days after the petition filing date in Missouri. If the divorce is uncontested (meaning, the spouses agree on how to settle all issues), then the divorce process will be completed about 90 to 120 days after filing. Contested divorces, in which spouses disagree as to one or more issues, may take six to twelve months or longer to resolve.

The actual divorce is initiated once the petitioner files the petition for divorce in the court which has personal jurisdiction over the matter. Nearly all Kansas City, Kansas divorces are filed in Wyandotte County District Court, while most Kansas City, Missouri divorces are filed in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court of Jackson County. The petitioning spouse then needs to serve the divorce papers on the responding spouse.

Grounds for Divorce in Kansas City, MO

The legal grounds for divorce are defined as the reasons to end the marriage. Missouri has a no-fault divorce system. Instead of having to prove misconduct like adultery, one spouse simply has to allege that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. This means the marriage cannot and is unlikely to ever be repaired.

While fault does not matter insofar as the grounds for divorce, it can affect other matters like child custody and financial issues. For example, allegations of domestic violence may affect which party is granted physical or legal custody of a child.

Grounds for Divorce in Kansas City, KS

In Kansas City, KS, most spouses ask for a divorce based on incompatibility. This is a no-fault allegation that essentially means the marriage has broken down and cannot be recovered. Another no-fault claim is incompatibility by reason of mental illness or mental incapacity. The purpose of this type of divorce is not to punish a mentally ill or incapacitated spouse but to argue that the marital relationship cannot continue due to mental deficiency.

Kansas also recognizes fault grounds which broadly fall into a category known as failure to perform a material marital duty or obligation. The statute does not include a comprehensive grounds of conduct which may qualify, but it can include:

• Abandonment
• Extreme neglect
• Refusal to provide support
• Adultery
• Serious misconduct that affects the marriage

Click or Call to Schedule a Confidential Consultation.

Spousal Maintenance (Alimony) Considerations

One of the major issues that spouses have to decide is spousal maintenance, also known as alimony. Whether the spouses can resolve this, along with the other matters arising out of their marriage, will determine if they will have a contested or uncontested divorce.

Neither Missouri nor Kansas uses an express formula to calculate spousal support. Judges in both states also have considerable discretion in deciding whether to award alimony and in what amount. Beyond this, the two states diverge.

Missouri Spousal Maintenance Laws

Before awarding alimony, a judge must find that the spouse requesting it lacks enough property to meet his/her financial needs and is unable to meet his/her needs through employment. If a spouse can meet this criteria, then the court may award spousal support. The statutory factors used to determine the amount include:

• The duration of the marriage
• The spouses’ standard of living during the marriage
• Both spouses’ earning capacities
• The financial resources of both spouses
• The age and health of both spouses
• Any evidence of marital misconduct

The Missouri approach tends to result in more indefinite alimony awards versus Kansas. That’s because the focus is on whether the receiving spouse can become self-supporting. So courts can award temporary and rehabilitative alimony as well as long-term and, in some divorce cases, indefinite spousal support.

Kansas Spousal Maintenance Laws

Kansas law allows spousal maintenance that is fair, just, and equitable under the circumstances. This gives judges broader discretion compared to Missouri. Also, unlike Missouri, Kansas does not explicitly include marital misconduct as a spousal maintenance factor.

Kansas courts tend to view spousal maintenance in more practical terms than Missouri. The objective in awarding spousal maintenance is to help the receiving spouse become self-supporting. Spousal maintenance therefore tends to be temporary and rehabilitative in nature. Kansas also imposes a statutory limit of 121 months of spousal maintenance which reinforces its approach to alimony.

Click or Call to Schedule a Confidential Consultation.

Asset Division and Equitable Distribution

Dividing marital property is another important step in finalizing divorce. The division of assets in both Kansas and Missouri is based on principles of equitable distribution. “Equitable” means fair, not necessarily equal, so a 50/50 split in property is not guaranteed.

Importantly, courts in both states are primarily concerned with marital property. Marital includes anything the spouses acquired after the date of marriage. Separate property such as gifts to one spouse, inheritances, or anything that a spouse owned before marriage is generally not considered. However, there are more complex cases in which marital and separate property are commingled.

Your Kansas City divorce lawyer will walk you through the basic steps of property division, which include:

• Identification of all property and debts: Included are real property, bank and investment accounts, retirement accounts, vehicles, family businesses, credit card balances, and personal property.
• Classification of all property and debt: The two essential categories are marital property and debts (subject to division) and separate property and debts (to be retained by one or the other party).
• Exchange of financial information and valuation: This is often done through the process of discovery. The goal is to determine the value of each item of marital property and debt. Valuation of the marital assets and debts must take place before either can be distributed between the spouses.
• Apply the equitable distribution factors: In deciding how to divide the assets and debts, the court takes into account such factors as the length of the marriage, the spouses’ financial circumstances, the economic needs of both spouses, and evidence of marital waste.
• Settlement or trial: The spouses are often required by the court to attempt mediation to try to determine who will receive each item of property and debt. If this does not work, then the judge will have to decide. Regardless, the final divorce decree will formalize the asset and debt distribution.

How a Kansas City Divorce Attorney Can Help

The above is only an overview of how a Kansas City divorce works. Seemingly simple divorces can become quite complex, particularly when unusual financial assets are at issue. There are also other considerations like child support and child custody.

No matter what the details of your divorce are, it’s time to get serious about your rights. Having knowledgeable legal counsel in your corner is critical. The family law attorneys of Joseph, Hollander & Craft have extensive experience with Kansas City divorce laws. We know what’s at stake in your case and we know how to develop a personalized legal strategy that puts your best interests first. If divorce is in your future, reach out to us today.

The post Kansas City Divorce Laws: What to Know Before Filing appeared first on Home.

Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Carrie E. Parker, Legal Editor
Luzianne Jones, Design & Publishing Editor

PUBLISHED BY: Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

PUBLICATION DATE: September 30, 2026

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 9

FEATURE ARTICLE: The Right to Be Wrong

A great deal of attention has been focused on generative artificial intelligence (GAI) and the dangers of the documents produced being error prone. The vast majority of this attention has been focused on one kind of mistake: so-called hallucinations, situations where AI cites a non-existent case in its work product. Judges have unanimously condemned the use of documents containing hallucinations, and lawyers are now attempting to find ways to prevent this. But AI problems in document production are not limited to hallucinations. AI also makes substantive mistakes, including mistakes in interpretation, vocabulary, and intent.

In a recent letter from Sullivan & Cromwell apologizing for submitting documents with multiple hallucinations, the firm also acknowledged the existence of non-hallucinatory mistakes (although the letter does specify what these were). Still, the letter focused almost entirely on hallucinations and the process used to eliminate them. Should lawyers focus on hallucinations primarily? Or should the profession recognize that the problem of mistakes in documents and other work product may go beyond hallucinations?

. . .

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

OPINION: Law School Accreditation

The current administration in Washington is attempting to change the accreditation process for law schools. This has caused a tidal wave of protest by law school administrators and faculty as well as by the American Bar Association, which is currently the primary law school accreditor. Although many reasons for these changes have been proposed, one focus has been accreditation rules are viewed by the administration as unacceptably liberal, such as the rules on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Further, the current administration has had rocky relations with the ABA on such matters a judicial selection. There is an old cliché that seems applicable: “don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.” Accreditation is about far more than DEI. It is about assured consistency in legal education, maintenance of educational standards, and lawyer mobility.

The ABA is the primary accreditation body that works with the American Association of Law Schools (an organization of law deans and law faculty) and state accreditation bodies. The most practical aspect of the current system is that law students who attend ABA/AALS accredited law schools may take an examination to be admitted in any state bar anywhere in the United States. By contrast, law students who attend a law school without ABA/AALS accreditation but that has state accreditation may take the bar exam only in the state in which the school is accredited.

The accreditation process does more than increase lawyer mobility, though. It also works to assure that law schools meet minimum standards set by the ABA (and generally the AALS). When the accreditation machinery was first adopted, there was an immense variety of law schools—ranging from work-study law schools run by the YMCA, to practitioner-run night and weekend schools, to traditional Harvard or Columbia model schools. The quality of instruction, facilities, and graduation requirements were inconsistent and variable. Law school applicants did not have the guarantee of a minimum instructional level. Accreditation rules were aimed at improving law school instruction and assuring that every law student would receive an acceptable, minimum level of legal education to protect the public from incompetent lawyers.

The imposition of consistency and minimum standards through the accreditation process also make law firm, corporate, and judicial hiring more efficient and reliable. Law firms can hire students from any accredited law school without doing deep research into a law school’s curriculum, practical training, and other factors since they knew that every accredited law school has minimum standards for graduation.

The value of a national accreditation system run by lawyers and judges far exceeds the three benefits listed above, but these should be enough to suggest that doing away with the present system of ABA/AALS accreditation is ill-considered. Regardless of how one views issues like DEI, the answer is not to dismantle the whole system. Similarly, unhappiness with other ABA activities should not motivate disruption of legal education.

ETHICS & MALPRACTICE RESEARCH TIP: New Articles on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

1.) Sierra Kayland Bernard, Note, From Courtroom to Content: Attorneys as Social Media Influencers, 50 J. Legal Prof. 73 (2025).

Increasingly, social media has become a source of significant celebrity –and income—for many lawyers.

2.) Elizabeth R. Carter, Joint Representation of Spouses and Romantic Partners: Ethical Considerations for Estate Planners, 79 Ark. L. Rev. 1 (2026).

Representation of couples is a perennial problem for lawyers and requires careful navigation of ethics rules.

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: Dos Passos on Lawyers

It is a principle of universal jurisprudence, that lawyers in their dealings with their clients, and with the court, must observe the strictest rules of honor, fidelity, respect, and obedience. They are held, therefore, to a standard of morals, above and not below the average; a proof that their morale at some time, and in some way, was fixed at a level with their presumed attainments, and corresponding to their opportunities. Popularly, this is always lost sight of, when a member of the profession incurs censure.

— John Dos Passos, The American Lawyer: As He Was, As He Is, As He Can Be (1907)

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 9

About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 26 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.

We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.

When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.

The post Legal Ethics & Malpractice Reporter, Vol. 7, No. 9 appeared first on Home.

Author: Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief

Legal Editor: Carrie E. Parker

This article is featured in Volume 7, Number 9 of the Legal Ethics and Malpractice Reporter, published September 30, 2026.

A great deal of attention has been focused on generative artificial intelligence (GAI) and the dangers of the documents produced being error prone. The vast majority of this attention has been focused on one kind of mistake: so-called hallucinations, situations where AI cites a non-existent case in its work product. Judges have unanimously condemned the use of documents containing hallucinations, and lawyers are now attempting to find ways to prevent this. But AI problems in document production are not limited to hallucinations. AI also makes substantive mistakes, including mistakes in interpretation, vocabulary, and intent.

In a recent letter from Sullivan & Cromwell apologizing for submitting documents with multiple hallucinations, the firm also acknowledged the existence of non-hallucinatory mistakes (although the letter does specify what these were). Still, the letter focused almost entirely on hallucinations and the process used to eliminate them. Should lawyers focus on hallucinations primarily? Or should the profession recognize that the problem of mistakes in documents and other work product may go beyond hallucinations?

The Sullivan & Cromwell letter tracks recent judicial discussions of AI problems, which substantially focus on ethical and procedural rules that may be violated when a final product contains hallucinations, (particularly MRPC 1.1 and 5.3 and FRCP 11(b)). These provide several means of critiquing lawyer citations of hallucinated documents, including incompetence, failure to supervise, and signature of documents that do not meet the requirements of verification of 11(b). The problem is that this focus on AI-generated hallucinations has led lawyer attention to be focused only on hallucinations and not the possibility of other errors, which are equally subject to these rules.

It might be useful in understanding this problem by using a hypothetical. Imagine a situation in which an associate in a small firm is asked to draft a mortgage for a borrower on an apartment building that is being purchased by the client. The task of drafting the mortgage is given to a first-year junior associate. There is also a partner in charge of the matter and a senior associate directly supervising the junior associate. Now consider two possible scenarios. In the first scenario, the junior associate who is well-trained and experienced in using GAI and formulating prompts, gives the task to the firm GAI. Within a few minutes, a draft of the mortgage is produced. The junior associate reviews the draft, makes several corrections and hands it off to the senior associate. The senior associate, too, reviews the document closely and, satisfied that there are no hallucinations, the senior associate lawyer turns it over to a proofreader. Once the proofreader has finished, the document is presented to the partner. The partner reviews it, but, perhaps, not as thoroughly as the associates because the partner knows that the associates are more than competent and because to do another detailed review would cost the client unnecessary fees. The draft is finalized, and the mortgage is signed by all the parties.

Two years later, the partner gets a call from the client. The client was served papers stating that a lien has been filed against their property by the lender. The lien has been placed on the apartment building because the property has become uninhabitable due to toxic lead paint and the client has failed to make three mortgage payments. Further, the client states that a lien has also been filed by the lender against their residence and investment accounts. The client had directed the law firm that the “deal” was to be nonrecourse, i.e. that the borrower would have no liability beyond the property subject to the mortgage. After reviewing the document, the senior partner discovers that the mortgage text uses both the phrases nonrecourse and recourse interchangeably, leading the lender to take the position that the borrower has personal liability.

For our purposes, the resolution of the mortgage dispute is irrelevant. Our concern is whether the law firm acted unethically under current law. Judging by recent cases and rulings, the answer may be “yes” because courts and commentators seem to be taking that absolutist position that, if AI is involved in an error and human lawyers did not catch it, then an ethical violation has occurred. And yet, in this hypothetical, the AI did not generate a hallucinatory case. It simply made an error just like a human lawyer might. Unfortunately, the reviewing lawyers were focused on detecting hallucinations and did not do an adequate substantive review.

Had AI not been involved and the error has been solely that of the junior lawyer and the failure of the reviewing lawyers, would judges and commentators have taken the position that an ethical breach had occurred? In other words, is making a mistake an ethical breach of competence under Rule 1.1 and/or a failure of supervision under Rule 5.3? Does it matter whether the mistake is human or machine caused? The answer should be no.

Rules 5.1 and 5.3 are concerned with office processes that generate ethical results. The rules require that lawyers adopt document production processes designed to avoid ethical violations:

A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the rules of professional conduct.

They require reasonable efforts to assure that ethical rules, including Rule 1.1 are satisfied.

How, then, do we understand what seems to be the overwhelming focus on AI hallucinations? The answer may be that hallucinations are new and frightening. In looking at Rules 1.1, 5.1, and 5.3, we must treat hallucinations as a special kind of error, one which needs an absolutist, zero tolerance approach and a different office process than for substantive errors. As noted earlier, any time a hallucination is included in a final legal document, there has been a failure of the lawyers adequately to monitor and supervise document production. An AI-generated document should never be finalized without all the cited cases being subject to a rigorous verification process. Failure to do so is clearly a violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 5.1 and 5.3. In other words, AI hallucinations can be caught and eliminated by appropriate document production processes. It is easy to prevent hallucinations from being included in final documents. There is no excuse, as courts have pointed out, for not doing so. This does justify a zero-tolerance approach to hallucinations, as most courts have adopted.

Non-hallucinatory errors, even those by an AI, however, are not so easy to deal with. Lawyers make mistakes, and running citations through a digital database will not catch these substantive errors. The whole purpose of Rules 5.1 and 5.3 is to encourage lawyers to establish work production processes to minimize mistakes from entering final work product. In the hypothetical above, the problem is that the lawyers did not pay enough attention to each word. Three lawyers reviewing the document all missed a legally significant error in wording. One can wonder whether a focus on hallucinations left them with a false sense of comfort when the verification process showed none. It should not have. Hallucinations are one problem. Substantive errors are another. Both require lawyer attention.

A recent Alabama ethics opinion, OGC Opinion 26-01, expresses this point well by emphasizing that ethical use of AI in document drafting requires both verification and “substantive” review of the documents, just as much as would be done in reviewing a first-year associate’s work. In effect, the introduction of AI into the law office does not change Rules 5.1 and 5.3 or substitute verification review for substantive document review. It requires both. Verification review does not replace substantive review. A first-year associate or AI may make substantive errors. This will not necessarily show incompetence by the lawyer. But failure to catch these errors is more likely to result in a disciplinary body finding a 5.1 or 5.3 violation. The message here is clear. Focus on hallucinations alone is an error.

READ THE FULL ISSUE OF LEMR, Vol. 7, No. 9

About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 25 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.

We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.

When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.

The post The Right to Be Wrong appeared first on Home.

Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Carrie E. Parker, Legal Editor
Luzianne Jones, Design & Publishing Editor

PUBLISHED BY: Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

PUBLICATION DATE: August 31, 2026

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 8

FEATURE ARTICLE: Ethical Issues with Judicial Use of Generative AI

Lawyers have been using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) for the past decade. During that time, AI has evolved rapidly, and dependence on AI by lawyers has increased enormously. With that increased usage, lawyers have discovered that there are often critical problems with GAI.

When used to do research and draft documents such as memoranda, motions, and briefs, GAI makes mistakes and cites fictional cases and other sources, called hallucinations, and misinterprets real cases that it cites. Indeed, the number and quality of lawyers and law firms that have submitted flawed GAI-generated documents to courts is rather frightening.

. . .

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

NEW AUTHORITY: An Important Source for AI Information

In this month’s newsletter we want to highlight a source for legal professionals seeking authority addressing generative AI produced hallucinated content: https://www.damiencharlotin.com. This website maintains a database of legal decisions issued in cases where GAI hallucinated content has been submitted in court filings. The website includes cases from throughout the globe, although the majority of cases listed are from jurisdictions in the United States of America.

The site links to the relevant decisions while also listing key information, such as: case name; court/jurisdiction; party using AI (e.g., lawyer, judge, pro se litigant); and outcome of the AI issue (e.g., bar referral, admonishment, sanction). It is searchable as well. Currently, at this writing, the website contains over 1965 decisions addressing instances of hallucinated material in court documents.

This compilation is far more important than one might think. First, has become an accepted source that can be used to document frequency of hallucinations. See, e.g. Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 168 F.4th 231, 234 (5th Cir. 2026) (relying on the website in discussing the increasing problem of hallucinations); Parnell v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 181 F.4th 1209, 1212 (11th Cir. 2026) (same). Second, it is something that every lawyer should see at least once to demonstrate the very real danger of hallucinations caused by unverified GAI products. Third, it forms a reliable source by which lawyers and legal scholars can discover the kinds of hallucinations GAI has produced in legal situations so that professionals can better understand the risks of using it and inform colleagues what they should be looking for.

ETHICS & MALPRACTICE RESEARCH TIP: New Article on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Standing Committee on Law and National Security, The Role of the Judge Advocates General and of Judge Advocates: A Primer, 16 J. Nat’l Sec. L. & Pol’y 3 (2026).

For readers with an interest in military law and justice, this is a timely paper.

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: The Study and Practice of the Law in their Relation to Society

He who is influenced by the spirit of Integrity, will never himself misrepresent or knowingly be the cause of others misrepresenting the truth in a court of justice: no prospect of advantage to himself or his client will tempt him to the commission of so gross an error.

— A Member of Lincoln’s Inn (John Raithby), The Study and Practice of the Law in their Relation to Society 344 (rpt. Portland 1806).

READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 8

About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 26 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.

We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.

When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.

The post Legal Ethics & Malpractice Reporter, Vol. 7, No. 8 appeared first on Home.

Author: Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief

Legal Editor: Carrie E. Parker

This article is featured in Volume 7, Number 8 of the Legal Ethics and Malpractice Reporter, published August 31, 2026.

Lawyers have been using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) for the past decade. During that time, AI has evolved rapidly, and dependence on AI by lawyers has increased enormously. With that increased usage, lawyers have discovered that there are often critical problems with GAI.

When used to do research and draft documents such as memoranda, motions, and briefs, GAI makes mistakes and cites fictional cases and other sources, called hallucinations, and misinterprets real cases that it cites. Indeed, the number and quality of lawyers and law firms that have submitted flawed GAI-generated documents to courts is rather frightening.

Damien Charlotin maintains a website that keeps track of hallucination cases.¹ According to his records, there have been close to 2,000 cases in which GAI involvement has been discovered in legal documents as a result of hallucinations being submitted for official use. Lawyers who have submitted these documents have ranged from solo practitioners to members of the most elite law firms. Even though the problem has become well known throughout the Bar, this practice is not decreasing. Meanwhile, the penalties imposed on the lawyers have been significantly increasing.

Virtually all the attention about legal use of GAI has focused on hallucinations in documents submitted to courts or produced for courts and how procedural rules and ethical rules may be violated by the lawyers. But this is only one part of the problem.

Now the profession is beginning to consider the problem of how to deal with hallucinations which make it into judicial opinions and orders—either because a judge or judicial clerk has used GAI or because the judge or judicial clerk has repeated hallucinations submitted by an attorney.

It is important to realize that judges—lots of them—are using GAI. Sen. Charles Grassley held a Senate hearing on this issue in October 2025, and, in a speech on the Senate floor, expressed his concern that federal judicial use of GAI was a serious issue for the federal government:

This month, I sent letters to a pair of federal judges regarding their suspected use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in published court orders.

The two judges issued orders that were wrought with serious, inexplicable errors that were of great concern to the litigants, to the public and to me.

One judge, sitting in the Southern District of Mississippi, issued an order that named plaintiffs and defendants who were not even parties to the case.

It misquoted statutory text. It erroneously cited evidence that didn’t exist in the record. And it referred to sworn declarations by people who had not appeared anywhere in the case.

I’ve never seen or heard of anything like this from a federal court.

The other judge, sitting in the District of New Jersey, issued an order with fake quotes and misstatements about case law.

The order even falsely attributed quotations to the defendants that apparently were never made.

The two cases Grassley mentioned were obvious egregious examples of the types of errors that can be caused by unverified use of GAI, but they are not the only cases where errors attributable to GAI have been entered into the court record by the judge. Charlotin’s webpage shows that other U.S. judges have had similar problems with unverified GAI and that judges in other countries have fallen prey to the dangers of GAI, too.

One particular case, H. C. v. Contreras, No. F089316, 2026 WL 1493401 (Cal. Ct. App. Unpub. May 28, 2026), shows the negative result of an hallucinated citation. In that case, the California Appellate Court discussed and criticized the lower court’s reliance on a hallucinated citation when refusing to issue a protective order in a domestic child abuse case. The appellate court reversed, stating:

We have no difficulty concluding that it is an abuse of discretion for a court to rely in material part on fictional case authorities in rendering a decision or making an order. Reliance on fake cases is fundamentally incompatible with an informed exercise of discretion controlled by genuine principles of law. It seriously undermines the integrity of the outcome and erodes public confidence in our judicial system. It can also hinder meaningful appellate review.” (Campos and Munoz, supra, 118 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1123-1124.)

“This is not to say that the factors the court relied on were legally improper or that it could not have reached the same result applying proper legal reasoning grounded in genuine law. We hold only that the path the court took to reach its result constituted an abuse of discretion because it relied in material part on the holdings of nonexistent legal authorities” and misread the law. (Campos and Munoz…

Id. at *4 (Cal. Ct. App. May 28, 2026).

When a judge includes a hallucinated citation or hallucinated law in a decision the results can be far worse that an attorney including the same in a pleading. It may be some time before the hallucination is uncovered—if ever. Until it is discovered and corrected, the erroneous decision may have real world, practical effects far beyond the case in which it is filed.

There may come a time when judges will be sanctioned for incorporating hallucinated cases into official court documents, but that time does not appear to be approaching anytime soon. Instead, it appears that the judicial brethren are attempting to deal with the problem by a combination of public embarrassment and quite a bit of published advice. In terms of embarrassment, when a hallucinated citation is discovered in an opinion or court order, it is almost always withdrawn or appealed and quickly reversed. Of course, in these cases there are additional costs for the court and the litigants.

Short of banning judicial use of GAI, there are other ways to deal with the problems it creates. The National Center for State Courts has published several reports of judicial use of GAI incorporating results of surveys. One reported noted:

Although judges interviewed were keenly aware of the risks of GenAI, they nevertheless were finding value in GenAI tools to increase their productivity and efficiency. In addition to the use cases for GenAI discussed above, judges also reported using (or considering using) GenAI in the following ways:

• Assistance with drafting law review articles or research for law review articles
• Assistance with teaching classes at law schools
• Data analysis, such as when to hold hearings to maximize attendance
• Possible translation or transcription services in future if technology improves (though another judge said those were not good enough yet)

Obviously, some of these uses, such as writing for law reviews or preparing class materials may not have as many real-life negative aspects as using GAI with hallucinations. Yet uses that create legally authoritative documents are a whole different, and far riskier, category of use.

We suggest that because of the paucity of specific guidance for judges, they also might look to the types of workflow patterns that private law firms are developing. In essence, these firms have discovered that they cannot trust GAI generated documents. It is imperative that skilled and trained humans verify that every GAI document does not contain hallucinations or other errors and that these be corrected before the document is used.

As noted, GAI can be extremely helpful to sitting judges, especially those without adequate staffing. Even judges with clerks need warning. According to recent surveys, most law students use GAI all the time. Indeed, many would have difficulty if they were prohibited from using it by a judge. Still many, if not most, clerks have substantial workloads. It may well be necessary for judges either to decrease clerk workload or find other trained court personnel to do this critical task.

It is clearly time for lawyers, regulators, and the judiciary to formulate effective rules on judicial use of GAI to prevent further errors entering the stream of law and threatening the legitimacy of the judicial system.

READ THE FULL ISSUE OF LEMR, Vol. 7, No. 8

About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC

Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 25 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.

We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.

When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.

The post Ethical Issues with Judicial Use of Generative AI appeared first on Home.

This honor is presented to only one individual in each practice area and geographic region and is based entirely on peer-review evaluations, making it a singular recognition of professional excellence and reputation within the legal community.

Receiving this designation reflects the high level of respect a lawyer has earned among other leading lawyers in the same communities and the same practice areas for their abilities, professionalism, and integrity.

In addition to “Lawyer of the Year,” Dionne M. Scherff was listed in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America^® in the following practice areas:

• Criminal Defense: General Practice
• Criminal Defense: White-Collar

This is Dionne’s seventh consecutive year receiving recognition by The Best Lawyers in America^® for criminal defense. This is her second time receiving recognition as a “Lawyer of the Year”.

Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as a definitive guide to legal excellence. For more than four decades, Best Lawyers has helped those in need of legal services identify the lawyers best qualified to represent them in distant jurisdictions or unfamiliar specialties. Lawyers are not required nor allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore, recognition by Best Lawyers is a significant distinction.

The post Dionne Scherff Named 2027 Best Lawyers® “Lawyer of the Year” in Kansas City, KS appeared first on Home.