All attorneys have their own set of strengths and weaknesses. Some might be adept at swaying a jury, while others are unmatched at legal research and writing. Regardless of what they do well, those in the legal profession know they operate under rules and ethical codes they must obey. Well, most do.
Attorney H. Gregory Harp found out the hard way that appearing to act in bad faith carries serious repercussions when U.S. District Judge Harold D. Mooty III sanctioned him on May 21, 2026, after discovering false quotations in one of Harp’s filings and suspecting the use of generative AI. But Judge Mooty III imposed the harshest penalties for the lawyer’s conduct after the court issued show-cause orders. Harp’s choices to obfuscate the record and destroy evidence earned him, among other punishments, a six-month suspension of his license to practice law in the Northern District of Alabama.
That may only be the tip of the iceberg for Harp’s troubles, as the federal judge also made a referral to the Alabama Bar Association for possible further discipline. Harp’s attempt to hoodwink the court about the misrepresentations in his filing, which he attributed to his ChatGPT account, and then, in the face of a show-cause order, delete the AI tool and its history, backfired in a predictable but still spectacular manner.
The Coverup Is Often Worse Than the Crime
Harp, an independent attorney, was representing Jackie Miller in her federal employment discrimination lawsuit against Regions Bank. In response to a motion for summary judgment by Regions, Harp filed a Response in Opposition on November 30, 2025. It also turned out that he’d purchased a ChatGPT Plus account four days earlier. Given the type (and frequency) of stories involving improper legal generative AI use covered here, you can probably guess what happens next.
The court determined that while four of the cases in the filing were real, the quotations attributed to them were not. A show-cause order was issued on April 16, 2026, demanding that Harp check all of his other filings for additional hallucinations and amend his motion while explaining why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for using fabricated quotes. Harp claimed that he had “no idea” how they got in there and that he didn’t use ChatGPT. That changed on April 20, when he admitted that he used a free version of ChatGPT for proofreading. A skeptical Judge Mooty III issued another show cause order on April 23, instructing Harp to submit a copy of his ChatGPT history, along with screenshots of his conversations with the chatbot.
On April 29, Harp submitted a thumb drive that included a one-page, unsigned .pdf in which he stated that his account history had been deleted. That went over about as well as one might expect. Examination of the screenshots revealed some things that Harp likely wished had remained undiscovered. In addition to proof that Harp had purchased a six-month ChatGPT account in November 2025, there were records of him canceling the account on April 23, 2026, three days after being ordered by the court to produce the chat history and seven days before it would have expired. He also requested a prorated refund, receiving a $5.27 credit and adding the cherry to the top of his bad-decisions sundae.
New Prompt: How To Get a Law License Restored
If Harp had just fessed up to using ChatGPT in his filing, he might have suffered little more than a public reprimand. He received one anyway, courtesy of a civil contempt charge for disobeying a court order. His decision to push all of his chips into the center of the table proved to be a calamitous one. In addition to attempting to cover up his use of ChatGPT in a filing, he was also charged with spoliation of evidence for deleting his ChatGPT account after being ordered to preserve and produce its contents.
Citing Harp’s “utter lack of respect” for the legal system, Judge Mooty III invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Northern District of Alabama Local Rule 83.1(f), and the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct as giving the court legal authority for further sanctions. Along with the aforementioned public rebuke, Harp’s law license to practice in the Northern District of Alabama was suspended for six months. He was also disqualified from the case and must provide a copy of this order to all clients, opposing counsel, and judges in other litigation in which he’s involved. The order will also be published in the Federal Supplement as a warning for others.
In perhaps the most ominous punishment of all, Harp is required to provide the Clerk of Courts with a list of any jurisdictions in which he is able to practice law. These licensing agencies, along with the Alabama Bar Association, can request further proceedings against Harp for his conduct.
