Background
Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds, attorneys at an Orange County immigration law firm, filed appellate briefs in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of petitioners seeking review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order. The opening brief, signed by Sethi, cited two cases that do not exist—“Eduardo v. Garland” and “Lay v. Holder”—and attributed quotations to two real cases that never contained the quoted language. The firm’s practice was to have unlicensed law school graduates draft briefs, including legal arguments and supporting citations, while the signing attorneys did not read the cases cited before filing.
When the errors were discovered, Sethi filed a “Motion to Correct” claiming the fabricated citations were “typographical errors” and proposing replacement cases. At oral argument, Rounds—appearing because Sethi did not—denied three times that generative AI had been used, before finally conceding it was “possible.” He also revealed that the brief’s author was not a licensed attorney and that no licensed attorney had read the cited cases. The court identified similar fabricated citations in briefs Sethi filed in at least two other cases.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit imposed significant discipline on both attorneys. The court emphasized it was not sanctioning them for the mere use of generative AI. Rather, the rules are violated “at the point of signing and filing,” not at the point of research and drafting. If an attorney files a brief with nonexistent cases or gross misrepresentations of real authority, “it generally does not matter if he pulled the hallucination or misrepresentation from the output of an artificial intelligence tool or from his own natural intelligence.”
The court found violations of multiple rules: FRAP 28’s requirement that contentions be supported by citations to real authorities; California Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 and 1.3 (competence and diligence); Rule 3.1(a)(2) (presenting meritorious claims); and Rule 3.3(a)(1) (duty of candor). The court stressed that a signature on a brief is an attestation that the signer has personally reviewed all cited authorities for accuracy—a duty that cannot be delegated to subordinates, generative AI, or anyone else.
The most severe sanctions flowed from the repeated failure of candor. The attorneys falsely claimed the fabricated citations were typographical errors, denied AI usage at oral argument, and continued to file inadequate corrections in other cases. The court inferred that they knew the errors were not typographical and chose to cover up the true source. Had they disclosed the AI issue promptly and apologized, lesser sanctions may have been warranted.
Key Takeaways
- Using generative AI to prepare legal filings is not itself unethical—but signing and filing a brief with unchecked AI output violates procedural and ethical rules regardless of the technology used.
- The attorney who signs a brief attests to its accuracy under FRAP Rule 32(d); this obligation cannot be delegated to subordinates, whether or not they are licensed attorneys.
- When AI hallucinations or other errors are discovered in a filed brief, attorneys must immediately disclose the nature and source of the error to the court—not characterize fabricated citations as “typographical errors.”
- Inaccuracies (real cases cited for propositions they don’t support) may be more dangerous than fabrications (fake cases) because they are harder to detect and more common in current AI tools.
- Sanctions of $2,500 each, six-month suspension from Ninth Circuit practice, mandatory AI-use disclosure statements for two years, and referral to the State Bar of California were imposed.
Why It Matters
This is the Ninth Circuit’s most comprehensive treatment of attorney obligations when using generative AI, and it will be closely watched by every California practitioner incorporating AI tools into their workflow. The court’s framework is technology-neutral: the same rules that prevent AI hallucinations from reaching the court also prevent human-generated errors. At its core, the duty is simple—read every case you cite before you file.
For law firms of all sizes, the decision is a wake-up call about supervision practices. The Sethi Law Group’s system—having unlicensed brief writers draft legal arguments while signing attorneys “do not normally vet citations”—was described as “an extraordinary confession.” Firms using AI tools or delegating to junior staff must build verification workflows that ensure a licensed attorney reads every authority before filing. The six-month suspension and State Bar referral underscore that the consequences for failing to do so are career-altering.