A federal judge in Illinois has sided with renowned Scottish artist Peter Doig in a bizarre decade-long legal dispute over a desert landscape painting that the artist has consistently denied creating. On July 29, the court upheld an earlier ruling that Chicago art dealer Peter Bartlow, the disputed work's owner Robert Fletcher, and their attorney William Zieske are liable for $2.5 million to be paid to Doig as sanctions for pursuing what the court deemed a frivolous lawsuit.

The extraordinary saga, which reads more like a comedy of errors than a typical art authentication case, began in 2013 when former corrections officer Robert Fletcher and gallerist Peter Bartlow sued Doig over authorship of a landscape painting dated 1976 and notably signed "Pete Doige." Fletcher had purchased the disputed artwork for just $100 from an inmate at the Thunder Bay Correctional Center in Ontario, Canada, where he worked while attending nearby Lakehead University. Fletcher claimed he personally witnessed the inmate, whom he believed to be the famous artist, create the painting and even helped him find employment through a local union.

The case gained momentum in 2011 when a friend of Fletcher's suggested that the painting might be by the internationally acclaimed artist, whose works have commanded prices up to $39 million at auction. Fletcher contacted Bartlow, who then reached out to Doig's representatives to authenticate the piece. However, Gordon VeneKlasen, a partner at Doig's representing gallery Michael Werner, firmly denied that Doig had authored the work.

Undeterred by this rejection, Bartlow and Fletcher filed a lawsuit in 2013 against the artist and his gallery, seeking the right to attribute the painting to Doig. They alleged that the artist and his gallery had interfered with the prospective economic advantage of the piece and sought up to $10 million in damages for what they claimed was tortious income interference.

Doig's legal team mounted a comprehensive defense, presenting records that showed while Doig did live in Canada for some time, he was never incarcerated there and had no criminal record. The defense team conducted thorough research and tracked down a woman named Marilyn Doige Bovard, who provided crucial testimony that her late brother Peter Edward Doige was indeed incarcerated in the 1970s at the facility where Fletcher worked. Bovard testified that while incarcerated, her brother created several paintings, and the disputed work appeared to depict an area in Arizona where the siblings had previously lived.

Despite mounting evidence that clearly identified the true artist as Peter Edward Doige rather than Peter Doig, Fletcher and Bartlow's attorney William Zieske continued to pursue the lawsuit. This persistence in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence ultimately led to a 2016 ruling that definitively established Doig did not create the painting and that it was instead the work of the incarcerated individual named Peter Doige.

Even after the court's decisive ruling, Bartlow has maintained his allegations against Doig. When contacted by Hyperallergic, Bartlow continued to accuse the artist of concealing a possible criminal record in Thunder Bay and claimed, "His legal team in the trial was bigger than OJ [Simpson]'s." Hyperallergic has reached out to Doig, his attorney, and Michael Werner Gallery for additional comments on the matter.

Following the 2016 ruling, Doig sought sanctions against Fletcher and his co-plaintiffs, including their attorney Zieske, arguing that they had handled the case frivolously and in bad faith. In July 2024, the United States Court of Appeals upheld a 2023 decision to impose the substantial $2.5 million sanction, which includes attorneys' fees, against Fletcher and his associates.

In a gesture that speaks to his character, Doig announced at the time of the original ruling that he would donate the entire award to a nonprofit organization that creates art opportunities for incarcerated individuals. This decision adds a meaningful conclusion to a case that began with a painting created by an imprisoned artist and ends with funds being directed toward supporting artistic expression within correctional facilities.