The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a disciplinary order that should command the attention of every practitioner using generative artificial intelligence in legal work. The court sanctioned Orange County attorneys Mike Sethi and William Rounds, fining each $2,500 and suspending them from practice before the court for six months, after their immigration brief was found to contain citations to nonexistent opinions and fabricated quotations attributed to real cases.
The court did not treat the matter as a routine lapse. Instead, it framed the sanctions explicitly as a warning to bar members about the dangers of overreliance on generative AI tools when drafting legal briefs. By imposing both a financial penalty and a meaningful suspension, the panel signaled that courts are prepared to respond to AI-related errors with consequences that reach beyond reputational embarrassment and into attorneys' livelihoods and standing.
The underlying conduct illustrates the central risk associated with large language models: their tendency to generate confident, well-formatted text that may include entirely fictitious authorities or invented quotations grafted onto otherwise legitimate cases. When such content reaches a court without independent verification, the result is not merely a citation error but a misrepresentation of the law itself. The Ninth Circuit's order reflects the view that this conduct can rise to the level of sanctionable behavior, regardless of whether the attorney intended to mislead.
For law firms, the order reinforces several core obligations. The duty of competence and candor to the tribunal requires attorneys to independently verify every citation, quotation, and proposition of law in any filing, irrespective of whether a draft was produced manually, by an associate, or with the assistance of an AI tool. The order also underscores the value of firm-wide policies governing the use of generative AI, including required verification protocols, supervisory review, training on the limitations of these tools, and clear documentation practices. Firms that integrate AI without these safeguards face heightened exposure to professional discipline, malpractice claims, and client harm.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Clients facing questions about professional responsibility obligations or the use of generative AI in their practice should seek tailored guidance from qualified counsel.