Federal Judge Considers Sanctions After Assistant U.S. Attorney Admits Using AI to Draft Fraudulent Brief

Assistant U.S. Attorney Rudy Renfer admits to using AI for a Raleigh court filing containing fabricated quotes. Judge Robert Numbers II weighs sanctions.

By: AXL Media

Published: Mar 11, 2026, 9:36 AM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from The News & Observer

A Career Derailed by Artificial Intelligence

The legal career of Rudy Renfer, an assistant U.S. attorney with 17 years of experience, has effectively ended following a high-profile failure in professional conduct. During a sanctions hearing at the Terry Sanford Federal Building on Tuesday, Renfer admitted that he utilized artificial intelligence to help draft a legal brief. The resulting document contained fabricated citations and misrepresentations of law, leading Renfer to resign his position. "I take full responsibility for what happened," Renfer told the court, explaining that he turned to AI in a moment of panic after accidentally overwriting his original work near a filing deadline.

Fabricated Quotes Flagged by Retired Colonel

The errors were brought to the court's attention by Derence Fivehouse, a retired Air Force colonel and litigation expert who filed a civil lawsuit over GLP-1 weight-loss drug coverage. Fivehouse identified that the government’s opposing brief contained quotes from court cases that did not exist and descriptions of legal precedents that were entirely inaccurate. While Renfer initially attributed the mistakes to an "inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft," he later confessed to the judge that the content was AI-generated and had not been properly fact-checked before submission.

Judge Questions Pattern of "Repeated Sloppiness"

U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Numbers II expressed deep skepticism regarding the incident, noting that errors appeared in some of Renfer’s other filings as well. Although Renfer claimed he only used AI as an "outline tool" in previous instances, Judge Numbers noted a trend of "repeated sloppiness" that undermined the office’s duty to serve the public. The judge highlighted the power held by U.S. attorneys and expressed disappointment that a seasoned prosecutor would take shortcuts on fundamental legal arguments.