U.S. Court Sanctions Immigration Attorneys Over Fabricated AI-Generated Legal Briefs
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a significant disciplinary ruling against two California-based immigration attorneys, suspending them from practice before the court for six months. The sanctions follow an investigation that revealed the attorneys submitted legal briefs containing nonexistent case law, misattributed quotations, and gross factual misrepresentations—all of which originated from the use of generative artificial intelligence.
Attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds, both affiliated with the Sethi Law Group in Orange County, were ordered to pay a $2,500 fine each. The court’s opinion, released in June 2024, clarified that the disciplinary action was not a result of using AI technology itself, but rather the attorneys’ failure to verify their filings and their lack of candor when confronted with the fabricated content.
The Failure of Due Diligence
The controversy stems from an immigration case in which the attorneys sought to halt the deportation of a family. While the court ultimately ruled in favor of the clients, the proceedings were marred by the attorneys’ submission of briefs containing “hallucinations”—a common phenomenon in generative AI where the software produces plausible-sounding but entirely fictitious information.
When the Ninth Circuit questioned the validity of the cited cases, Sethi and Rounds initially denied that AI was responsible for the errors, instead attributing the inaccuracies to “typographical mistakes.” The court rejected this defense, noting that the attorneys “knowingly or recklessly made false statements to this Court” and failed to disclose the use of AI tools that produced the faulty citations.
Court’s Warning to the Legal Profession
The three-judge panel used this ruling to set a clear precedent for the integration of technology in the courtroom. The court emphasized that the burden of accuracy rests solely with the human practitioner, regardless of the tools used to draft documents.
“However legal papers are prepared, and however legal technology develops, the court’s procedural and ethical rules apply with equal force,” the panel wrote in their decision.
The ruling serves as a stark warning to the legal community: practitioners must read and verify every citation included in a court filing. Transparency is mandatory, and the court encourages attorneys to disclose the use of generative AI if there is any doubt regarding the accuracy of the output.
Key Takeaways for Legal Professionals
- Verify Everything: AI-generated content must be treated as a draft. Every case citation and legal precedent must be manually cross-referenced against authoritative databases.
- Duty of Candor: Attorneys have an ethical obligation to be honest with the court. Attempting to hide the source of errors—or denying the use of AI when it has clearly contributed to a filing—can lead to severe disciplinary consequences.
- Technological Responsibility: The court does not prohibit the use of AI, but it places the full weight of accountability on the attorney’s shoulders. Using a tool does not excuse a failure to perform diligent legal research.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an AI “hallucination” in a legal context?
A hallucination occurs when an AI model generates a response that appears authoritative and professional but is factually incorrect or entirely fabricated. In legal practice, this often manifests as the creation of fake court cases that do not exist in any legal record.
Are attorneys banned from using AI in the Ninth Circuit?
No. The court has not banned AI. However, it requires that all filings meet the high standard of accuracy required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. If an attorney uses AI, they remain fully responsible for the truthfulness and accuracy of the final submission.
What happens if an attorney is suspended from the Ninth Circuit?
A suspension from the Ninth Circuit means the attorney is barred from filing documents, appearing for oral arguments, or representing clients before that specific appellate court for the duration of the sanction. This can have significant impacts on their ability to manage existing cases and their professional reputation.
As the legal industry continues to grapple with the rapid adoption of generative AI, this case serves as a definitive reminder that technology is meant to assist legal professionals, not replace the fundamental duty of verifying the law.