Summary
The Ninth Circuit issued a disciplinary order imposing sanctions on attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds for filing briefs containing nonexistent cases, misattributed quotations, and materially inaccurate descriptions of real authorities. The court held that the attorneys violated procedural and professional duties by signing and filing inaccurate briefs and by repeatedly failing to disclose that generative AI may have contributed to the errors. The sanctions included monetary penalties and a six-month suspension from practice before the Ninth Circuit.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Ninth Circuit had authority to discipline attorneys appearing before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the court's bar and violations of applicable professional-conduct rules.
- Whether filing briefs containing fabricated cases, misattributed quotations, and materially inaccurate descriptions of real authorities violated the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and California duties of competence, diligence, and meritorious advocacy.
- Whether the attorneys violated their duty of candor by characterizing fabricated citations as typographical errors, denying or failing to disclose possible generative-AI use, and failing to transparently correct prior false statements.
- What disciplinary measures were appropriate for the attorneys' filing misconduct and repeated lack of candor.
Holdings
- The Ninth Circuit has authority under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(b)(1)(B), Ninth Circuit Rule 46-2(a), and applicable law to impose discipline on attorneys practicing before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the court's bar or violations of applicable professional-conduct rules.
- An attorney who signs and files a brief containing nonexistent cases, misattributed quotations, or gross misrepresentations of real authorities violates the requirement to support contentions with citations to authority and may violate duties of competence, diligence, and meritorious advocacy, regardless of whether the errors originated with generative AI, a subordinate, or the attorney.
- The use of generative AI is not itself sanctionable under the rules, but attorneys remain responsible for reviewing and verifying AI-generated or otherwise delegated work before signing and filing it.
- When an attorney discovers a hallucinated or otherwise material error in a filing, the duty of candor requires immediate notification to the court and opposing counsel, transparent description of the error, and disclosure of its source; merely substituting a real citation or labeling the error an 'error' is insufficient.
Key quotations
“If an attorney files a brief with cases or quotations that do not exist, or completely misrepresents what a real authority stands for, it generally does not matter if he pulled the hallucination or misrepresentation from the output of an artificial intelligence tool or from his own natural intelligence.” (17)
“In other words, no matter how a filing is prepared—whether by delegation, partnership, solo work, or generative AI—the party or attorney who submits the filing with this Court must read the authorities cited therein to ensure that they are real, properly attributed, and accurately represented.” (18)
“An attorney who erroneously submits a hallucination in a brief must notify the Court and opposing counsel immediately, describe the nature of the error (a fabrication, a gross misrepresentation, etc.), and disclose how the error came about—here, misused generative AI.” (25)
Factual background
Attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds filed appellate briefs containing nonexistent cases, quotations attributed to opinions in which they did not appear, and gross misrepresentations of real authorities. The attorneys initially characterized the errors as typographical or copy-and-paste mistakes and denied that generative AI had been used, although they later acknowledged that AI use was possible or probable and that no licensed attorney had checked the cited cases. The attorneys also made misleading statements in subsequent filings and during oral argument about the source of the errors and their efforts to correct them.
Procedural history
The petitioners sought review of a BIA decision dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review in a prior merits order, then identified citation and quotation problems in the attorneys' filings and issued an order to show cause. After considering the attorneys' response, the court imposed monetary sanctions, a six-month suspension, disclosure and certification requirements, and referral to licensing authorities.