Matter of Zareh

In the underlying federal case, respondent served as one of the reviewing attorneys on a brief containing numerous citation errors and misstatements of law. Defense counsel suggested that the brief had been drafted with AI. The district court later found that ChatGPT described at least one cited case in the same erroneous way and concluded that the brief was AI-generated. The drafting associate denied using AI, and the district court found that denial not credible. The court did not find that respondent used AI or knew it had been used, but he admitted that the citations had not been reviewed and that he had not adequately supervised the associate.

The First Department imposed a public censure as reciprocal discipline, based on the federal reprimand and respondent’s failure to supervise the drafting associate and ensure the brief’s accuracy. Quoting the district court, it emphasized that “it was bad faith to file this brief and then to come back and defend it.”