Attorney AI use
LNU v. Blanche
Immigration briefs contained nonexistent cases, misattributed quotations, and major misstatements, followed by repeated denials or minimization of AI use.
Suspensions and fines01
Case background
Material facts
Two lawyers submitted briefs with fabricated authorities and quotations. Their later responses did not candidly acknowledge how the filings were produced or the extent of the errors.
02
The decision
The court’s ruling
The Ninth Circuit fined each lawyer $2,500 and suspended each from practice before the circuit for six months. It imposed notice duties, a two-year AI disclosure and personal-verification certification, and bar reporting.
Why it matters
What the decision means
The Ninth Circuit did not sanction the lawyers for using generative AI. As the panel explained, “the rules are not violated at the point of research and drafting, but at the point of signing and filing.” The lawyers were sanctioned for signing and filing briefs containing false authorities and for repeatedly failing to disclose the source of the errors. A lawyer who learns of an error must promptly notify the court and opposing counsel, correct the record, and explain how the error occurred. The panel emphasized that “the duty of candor requires a transparent disclosure of the source of the errors.” It advised that a lawyer who learns of an error in a filing—including a generative-AI hallucination—should immediately alert the court and opposing counsel and disclose its source. (Slip op. at 2.)
Primary reading