The Clutch Justice Weekly briefing for Issue 020: a lawyer who apologized twice and got sanctioned anyway, plus a forensic science follow-up, an environmental accountability update, and Detective Club Week Two.
A Michigan attorney’s court filings cited cases that do not exist. Four times. He conceded the error, twice, and kept filing anyway. On June 17, the Michigan Court of Appeals published an opinion holding that an apology is not a cure, and that the eight months he took to correct the record counted against him, not for him. The sanction comes out of his own pocket, and the opinion is already headed to the state’s grievance commission.
What did the Michigan Court of Appeals decide in Barber v Morawa?
In a published opinion issued June 17, 2026, the court held that the reasonable-inquiry duty under MCR 1.109(E)(5) is measured objectively, that subjective good faith is irrelevant, and that delay in correcting a known defect is itself part of the sanctionable conduct.
Does apologizing for a mistake avoid sanctions?
No. Counsel in Barber conceded error twice and was sanctioned anyway, because conceding a defect is not the same as correcting the filing, and the objective standard does not credit sincerity.
Who pays the sanction?
The Court of Appeals directed that the sanction be paid by the attorney personally, not the client, and referred the matter to the Attorney Grievance Commission for possible investigation.
What is the Detective Club?
A free 20-week crochet-along that began August 1, 2026, pairing one crochet square with one chapter of an original serialized mystery every Saturday through December 12.
The Lead Investigation: Michigan Just Made “I’m Sorry” Stop Working in Court
Joyce Barber sued an orthopedic surgeon over a hip replacement performed in October 2020. After trial, the jury found no negligence. Her attorney moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct, and in building that motion, cited a case that does not exist. The defense caught it. Counsel then cited two more nonexistent cases in the same motion. The defense caught those too, and asked for sanctions. Counsel called it an innocent mistake and kept building the appeal on the same foundation, adding a fourth fabricated citation to the appellate brief. Read the full investigation.
The Correction That Broke the Same Rule It Was Fixing
Eight months after the first fabricated citation was flagged, counsel finally filed a Notice of Correction admitting the problem and describing new verification protocols. The court read it closely. Two phrases in that notice, attributed to a Michigan Supreme Court opinion, do not appear in that opinion at all. They come from somewhere else entirely, and counsel had used the same tool to write the correction that produced the original error.
Institutional Integrity Index: Who Passed, Who Failed
Overall grade: C+. Counsel’s verification conduct grades F across four separate filings. The Court of Appeals enforcement grades A for building a documented pattern and imposing a mandatory, personally-payable sanction. The existing court rule itself grades B, since the panel found MCR 1.109(E)(5) already adequate to the conduct without needing a new AI-specific disclosure rule.
Related Investigations
A federal audit was supposed to catch every crime lab the FBI taught bad microscopic hair analysis. It didn’t catch all of them, and the reason why is the story. See who got left out of the audit.
Federal Superfund status sounds like the fix. What it actually changes for the people living over the plume is narrower than that. See what actually changes.
|
Sponsorship Opportunity
Your organization could be here.
Reach attorneys, investigators, journalists, researchers, advocates, policymakers, and readers following the justice system closely. Clutch Justice reaches 19,000+ monthly visitors and 1,800+ combined weekly newsletter subscribers, with email open rates consistently around 50%.
|
The Pushpin Square Just Dropped
A second pin joins the first on the archive map this week, and a length of red string stretches between them. Two weeks in, still eighteen Saturdays to go, still free, still beginner friendly. Catching up takes about twenty minutes.
Catch Up on Weeks One and TwoSolutions Spotlight: Judicial Accountability Toolkit
The lawyer in this issue’s lead story got caught because someone on the other side checked his citations and kept a record of when. This toolkit covers how to build that same kind of record, for a judge, a prosecutor, or opposing counsel. Build your record.
Bluebook: Williams, Rita. Clutch Justice Weekly, Issue 020: Michigan Just Made “I’m Sorry” Stop Working in Court, Clutch Justice (August 9, 2026), https://clutchjustice.com/2026/08/09/clutch-justice-weekly-issue-020/.
APA 7: Williams, R. (2026, August 9). Clutch Justice Weekly, Issue 020: Michigan just made “I’m sorry” stop working in court. Clutch Justice. https://clutchjustice.com/2026/08/09/clutch-justice-weekly-issue-020/
MLA 9: Williams, Rita. “Clutch Justice Weekly, Issue 020: Michigan Just Made ‘I’m Sorry’ Stop Working in Court.” Clutch Justice, 9 Aug. 2026, clutchjustice.com/2026/08/09/clutch-justice-weekly-issue-020/.
Chicago: Williams, Rita. “Clutch Justice Weekly, Issue 020: Michigan Just Made ‘I’m Sorry’ Stop Working in Court.” Clutch Justice, August 9, 2026. https://clutchjustice.com/2026/08/09/clutch-justice-weekly-issue-020/.
Continue Your Investigation
If this reporting raised more questions, use the Clutch Justice ecosystem to keep going.
