The penalties for fake citations slowly inch up
- Peter Schneider
- Aug 19
- 7 min read
Updated: Sep 24
I wrote a few weeks ago a post warning about using AI to write your papers without checking all the citations yourself, and then this recent ruling came to my attention, Mavy v. Comm'r of SSA, No. CV-25-00689-PHX-KML (ASB), 2025 LX 361996 (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2025).
I am not particularly familiar with what the plaintiff Ms. Mavy was trying to accomplish, but she hired a Maren Bam to do something that required an opening brief. What she got was a brief where the majority of cases cited did not support the proposition for which they were cited, misquoted or miscited the authority, or were completely fabricated a/k/a an AI hallucination.
True to what I've seen several times before, the opposing party didn't even notice [and the judge was tweaked at the defendant for being asleep at the wheel], and the court found it, ordering Ms. Bam to show cause why she should not be sanctioned under FRCP 11. Ms. Bam's response gave a peak under the hood at how briefs are written in legal sweatshops:
the firm’s managing paralegal assigns briefs to attorney brief writers . . . every brief “is reviewed by an on-staff supervising attorney” who “reviews the brief’s legal arguments, formatting, and citations, and ensures the brief is legally sound.” . . . “[t]he supervising attorney spot-checks the legal authorities and citations outlined in the brief.” . . . Ms. Bam “personally” reviews and edits briefs for filing, “relying in good faith on the work of both the contracted attorney and the internal review process.” Counsel details the steps involved in submitting the Opening Brief in this case and submits exhibits to corroborate her assertions . . . Counsel’s managing paralegal assigned the case to “the attorney contract writer.” . . . Counsel underscores that the attorney who was contracted to author the Opening Brief in this case has strong qualifications to practice Social Security disability law [we already know that isn't true because an experienced practitioner in the space would know what caselaw on common topics does and doesn't say. I've caught two fake AI citations. One I caught because I knew the case didn't stand for the proposition they cited it for. The other I didn't catch until I pulled the case and looked. It was a case outside of my normal practice area. Suffice to say if you can get a brief past me in my normal practice area that is mostly fake citations and propositions, don't call me an experienced practitioner] . . . Contractor submitted the drafted Opening Brief to an attorney employed by Counsel’s firm who supervises contracted brief writers . . . Counsel subsequently reached out to Attorney-Supervisor to check on the brief’s progress, and Attorney-Supervisor responded that she was nearly finished editing it . . . Attorney-Supervisor reported to Counsel that Contractor’s arguments were “great,” [one of the briefs I caught a fake citation in had many more fake citations, and yes fake AI citations really do look impressive because AI created them to be exactly what you need. But this court said that when the fake citations were removed, the brief was useless. This means the Attorney-Supervisor was probably the wrong person for the job if they also didn't know the caselaw in the practice area] but she also observed that Contractor “included an improper medical opinion evaluation and the supportability/consistency analysis wasn’t flushed (sic) out . . . Attorney-Supervisor ended her email by stating it was her birthday weekend, so she would finish editing on the next business day . . . Counsel responded to Attorney-Supervisor that they were “not on the same page” and the brief was late [was it late or was Ms. Bam being a wench? Being a wench is a good way to demotivate employees to go the extra mile for you, so I am not feeling all that bad for Ms. Bam's punishment in the case] . . . Counsel set a meeting to discuss further, and Attorney-Supervisor responded she was experiencing some health struggles and assured Counsel she understood Counsel’s expectations . . . Finally, Counsel and Attorney-Supervisor “discussed the brief, reviewed it prior to signing and submission, and it was” filed. [Ms. Bam also didn't know the caselaw in her practice area well enough to spot even one of the fake citations]
Ms. Bam found herself in a very awkward position - she was pro hac vice. A court can take that away, and then typically on all future pro hac vice applications she will have to disclose that a court has revoked it, which will cause a lot more scrutiny on her.
The court went through a lengthy analysis to decide if Ms. Bam should be sanctioned under FRCP 11, before finding that she should.
In Counsel’s timeline of events leading to the filing of the Opening Brief, Counsel writes that Counsel and Attorney-Supervisor “discussed the brief, reviewed it prior to signing and submission, and it was sent to the supervising paralegal for filing.” (Doc. 17 at 4.) Due to the majority of the citations being either inaccurate or non-existent, it is apparent to the Court that Counsel did not review the citations. Thus, although Counsel does not expressly admit her review failed, it plainly did. It stands to reason that if Counsel had reviewed the Brief she was signing her name to, she would have removed fictitious, misleading, and unsupported citations. It is equally apparent that Attorney-Supervisor did not follow the firm’s “internal review” process outlined in the Response to the Order to Show Cause. (See id. at 2-3) (mentioning checking authorities and citations). Failures occurred at every level of Counsel’s identified process – a process that Counsel herself describes as “ensur[ing] legal integrity and compliance with FRCP 11.” By repeatedly citing this Court to non-existent “cases” and to actual cases that did not support the propositions for which they were cited, Counsel failed to conduct any review whatsoever that those cases were valid or that the arguments she was making were legally tenable. That conduct squarely runs afoul of Rule 11’s mandate. Counsel’s emphasis on the fact that she relied on other attorneys who drafted and edited her Opening Brief (see Doc. 17 at 3-5) is unavailing. Under Rule 11, “the signing attorney cannot leave it to some trusted subordinate, or to one of his partners, to satisfy himself that the filed paper is factually and legally responsible; by signing he represents not merely the fact that it is so, but also the fact that he personally has applied his own judgment.” . . . That duty cannot be delegated.
Her punishment didn't involve a fine, but will leave a much larger dent on her career:
Booted off the case and pro hac vice revoked [apparently her practice is nation wide with her pro hac vice'ing in. That's probably done]
The opening brief stricken and the client given 45 days to find a new attorney
Must write a letter to three judges AI attributed fake citations to
Must send this Order to every judge presiding over a case Ms. Bam is an attorney of record
The Order is being sent to every state bar she is a member of
Courts are ratcheting up the penalties for fake citations in an effort to reduce the increasing frequency this is a problem. At some point, courts might take a stick to opposing counsels who don't notice a brief full of bad law.
But here is a case a pro-se got away with lightly: Silver v. Transworld Sys., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167102, 2025 LX 321883, 2025 WL 2467320
the Court notes that Silver's motion relies on "United States v. Gibson Wine Co. , No. 1:11-CV-01303, 2014 WL 1725591, (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2014)," which appears to be a made-up case. TSI represents that it could not locate this case, and the Court's independent research confirms that no such case exists. This undermines confidence in Silver's legal analysis and suggests the motion may have been hastily prepared. More pointedly, citing non-existent legal authority is a serious matter that raises concerns under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which requires that legal arguments be warranted by existing law and that factual contentions have evidentiary support. All litigants—even parties representing themselves—are bound by Rule 11's commandments. Parties must verify the accuracy of their citations before filing papers with the Court. The proliferation of AI-generated content makes this verification step more important than ever. Silver is cautioned to use greater care in future filings.
*** Update
In Noland v Land of the Free from the California court of appeals, the court used a string of words you never want to see written about you.
What sets this appeal apart—and the reason we have elected to publish this opinion—is that nearly all of the legal quotations in plaintiff’s opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff’s reply brief, are fabricated. That is, the quotes plaintiff attributes to published cases do not appear in those cases or anywhere else. Further, many of the cases plaintiff cites do not discuss the topics for which they are cited, and a few of the cases do not exist at all. These fabricated legal authorities were created by generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools that plaintiff’s counsel used to draft his appellate briefs. The AI tools created fake legal authority—sometimes referred to as AI “hallucinations”—that were undetected by plaintiff’s counsel because he did not read the cases the AI tools cited.
Of course that killed the appeal, and as such the attorney responsible might be open to a legal malpractice claim, but on top of that the court set him back $10,000. And almost as hard to believe, the opposing counsel didn't detect any of this.
We decline to order sanctions payable to opposing counsel. While we have no doubt that such sanctions would be appropriate in some cases, in the present case respondents did not alert the court to the fabricated citations and appear to have become aware of the issue only when the court issued its order to show cause
My recommendation is read every case you cite, find every quote in the cases you cite, personally make sure each case stands for the proposition claimed. And likewise, do the same for every case your opponent cites. Catching them with fake citations is a great way to blow up their position.
Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington or Oregon? I handle TCPA lawsuits in both states and may be able to help. If you're considering action against illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, reach out for a legal consultation.
📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000
📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com
Note: The opinions in this blog belong to me (Peter Schneider) and do not count as legal advice. If you’re considering suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call violations, please contact me for a legal consultation.
Comments