We first clarify what this order is not about. We do not sanction Sethi and Rounds for the simple fact that they or their subordinates used generative AI. [...] Fabrications are the most notorious hallucinations, but inaccuracies may prove more dangerous to our profession in the long run. Inaccuracies are more likely to go unnoticed by attorneys and judges because they are not always susceptible to facial checks. [...] In other words, the sort of errors that we might expect a first-semester law student to make, but certainly not licensed attorneys appearing before this court. [...] [...]
The first published order from a federal appeals court on what a hallucinated brief costs when the lawyers deny it. Mike Sethi and William Rounds filed briefs in an immigration appeal citing two cases that do not exist, quotations that appear in no decision, and real cases described as holding things they do not hold. Asked, they called the errors typographical; only after argument did they concede that an unlicensed law graduate at the firm had used an unauthorised AI tool. Decided 3 June 2026: 2,500 US dollars each, six months' suspension from the court, a copy of the order to every client, opposing counsel and judge in every pending case, and for two years every filing from the firm must state under penalty of perjury whether generative AI was used and which tool. Using the tool is not the violation, the court says; signing without checking is.
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in CourtListener
