A sitting Oklahoma judge’s ChatGPT citations to two non-existent cases have closed a criminal investigation but opened the door to judicial discipline proceedings, after the state attorney general’s office declined to prosecute and referred the matter to the bodies with sanctioning authority over the bench.
Judge Lawrence Wheeler, an associate district judge of the District Court of Stephens County elected in 2022, told investigators with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) that he used OpenAI’s ChatGPT for research when drafting a court order. That order contained two citations to cases that do not exist.
Wheeler presides over a family law docket from his office in Duncan, Oklahoma. His lawyer, Scott Anderson, said: ‘Judge Wheeler and I have no comment on the matter at this time.’
What the Oklahoma Judge ChatGPT Citations Investigation Found
The fabricated citations surfaced in a custody dispute involving Stephens County mother Adriane Capers, whose case had been before the court for approximately three years. Her attorney discovered the citations were fabricated while attempting to file a motion against a denied ruling, according to NewsOn6. Wheeler subsequently recused himself from that custody case.
Wheeler told investigators he ultimately wrote the order himself and only used the AI tool for ‘research’, according to WFLA. That distinction did not prevent the OSBI investigation from examining additional allegations: that Wheeler offered to amend the order in exchange for the dismissal of a writ seeking relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and that he eavesdropped on jury deliberations.
The complaint originated with the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints, which referred the allegations to the OSBI. District Attorney Jason Hicks, whose office received the OSBI’s report, then recused himself from reviewing it and asked Oklahoma State Attorney General Gentner Drummond to take over, according to an 17 August letter from Hicks to the attorney general’s office.
Criminal Review Closed; Discipline Route Remains Open
Drummond’s office closed the criminal review. Its full statement, reported by News9, read: ‘District Attorney Jason Hicks recused from reviewing an OSBI investigation involving allegations against Stephens County Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler. The Criminal Justice Division of the Attorney General’s Office thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary possess ultimate jurisdiction’ over judicial discipline.
That final sentence is the operative one. The Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints, which initiated the referral, is prohibited from confirming or discussing whether any investigation is under way, according to Hoodline. When the council does verify findings, it forwards them to the Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court or the Court on the Judiciary, the bodies that hold the actual power to sanction or remove a judge.
No public announcement has been made as to whether either body has received the OSBI’s findings or intends to convene proceedings. Subject to any such referral, Wheeler remains on the bench.
The episode adds to a growing body of disciplinary and sanctions cases arising from judicial and practitioner use of AI-generated legal research. Courts across the United States have now seen multiple instances in which ChatGPT and similar tools produced plausible-looking but entirely fabricated case citations, a phenomenon sometimes described as AI hallucination. The risk is sharpest where, as here, the user relies on AI output without independent verification against a primary legal database. Oklahoma judge ChatGPT citations cases of this kind have prompted several state and federal courts to introduce standing orders requiring disclosure of AI use in drafted submissions and orders.
Whether Wheeler faces formal judicial discipline proceedings before the Court on the Judiciary, and on what timetable, is the question now outstanding. The court operates by referral; it does not self-initiate. The council’s next step, if it has not already acted, will determine whether this matter proceeds beyond the criminal threshold it has already cleared.
