The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Duty to Alert Court to Opponents' "Fictitious Citation[s]" and "Misrepresentation of Case Law"
From Judge Sharion Aycock (N.D. Miss.) yesterday in Billups v. Louisville Municipal School Dist.:
The Court also observes that the Defendant … could have flagged the fictious citation and misrepresentation of case law [by Plaintiff's counsel] in a reply brief or supplemental filing. The Court takes this opportunity to issue a charge. Going forward, the Court expects all parties to assist in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and to be diligent in flagging AI misuse. "[O]therwise, the risk is too great that such errors will persist undetected, potentially leading to an outcome unsupported by law." Elizondo v. City of Laredo (S.D. Tex. 2025).
Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo's order in Elizondo does indeed take the same view:
The Court also observes that Defendant, the City of Laredo, could have flagged these fictitious citations in a reply brief or supplemental filing. Although this oversight does not rise to the level of sanctionable conduct, the Court expects all parties to assist in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process by alerting the Court to such errors. The Court encourages greater diligence in flagging citation errors in the future— otherwise, the risk is too great that such errors will persist undetected, potentially leading to an outcome unsupported by law.
To be sure, lawyers often need no prompting to alert the court to errors by the other side. But sometimes they might feel reluctant to look like they're piling on with objections, especially when the erroneous citation is on a tangential point, or when they think they've already destroyed the other side's arguments on the merits. And sometimes they might be reluctant to spend their time and the client's money on putting together a list of errors by the other side (especially when that requires a whole new supplemental filing).
These decisions show that, despite that, alerting the court to all the citation errors you found in the other side's filings may be important to maintaining the court's confidence and goodwill. They can be useful citations if you do want to file such a list of errors but are afraid that a different judge will fault you for piling on. And they can be worth noting to your client if you want to explain why you're spending time and money on listing (and verifying and explaining) the other side's errors.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Why do litigants have a duty to inform the court of opponents' errors beyond what is necessary to get the result they want?
If judges want to know this, can't they compile such a list themselves? And don't judges have an independent duty to know the law, and not just regurgitate the law that the parties put in front of them?
Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3:
(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.
Does this rule extend to a responsibility to scour the opponents filings for errors?
That rule? No. It's only to alert the applicable authorities to violations of which one is aware. But a lawyer also has a professional duty to his or her client to zealously represent the client's interests. If one's opponent files a brief that cites caselaw adverse to one's client, and one fails to review the brief and catch that, one isn't doing one's job.
I would say that only extends to informing the court about an error the opposition actually spots, if they overlook such an error it may look bad to the client but it is no matter of the attorney's relation with the court.
These judges are requiring opposing attorneys to identify EVERY error. Suppose there are 100 errors. Identifying 5, probably fewer, would be enough to establish a violation and more would just be cumulative evidence of the violation. Why should a lawyer who identifies 99 risk being sanctioned for failing to find the 100th? Beyond a certain point, more are cumulative and not material.
Easy workaround. Write to the judge you identified 5 errors and suspect there are many more in the opponent's submission.
They are? Because I read the opinions and don't see any such requirement.
There's nothing in that rule that suggests that the lawyer is obliged to do the reporting in the form of a filing in the actual case. A memo a few weeks later to the relevant disciplinary body would meet the requirement just as well.
As not guilty says below, there's a billing question here. The client is not hiring the lawyer to do the work of the court's clerks. The costs of the lawyer's professional obligations are the costs of doing business as a lawyer. Requiring the lawyer to discharge his professional responsibilities by a filing in the actual court case invites a conflict of interest between the lawyer and his client.
Lee,
That was my take as well. While I can think of only edge cases where you would not want to tell the actual court about this; in those cases, making a report to the state Bar Assoc should satisfy Rule 8.3 (that David N helpfully posted, earlier in this thread). I don't know what courts (or disciplinary committees) would consider "timely." After a trial ends, do I have a few business days to report you? A few weeks? Six months???
In terms of social interests; I would think that I--a fellow lawyer and member of the Bar--have a professional responsibility to report you pretty damn quickly . . . to prevent you from doing similar shenanigans in the future. (I.e., harming future clients and future courts). But I have no idea if that's the actual legal requirement. There must already be case law on this, since there have been drunk lawyers, incompetent lawyers...long before there was AI, of course.
Aside from putting a greater workload on attorneys, these directives also put them in the difficult position of attempting to distinguish misconduct from inadvertent error. Opposing counsel has no more insight into an attorney's drafting process than the court. If a judge and his/her clerks can't ascertain misconduct from filings, how can opposing counsel? This puts the burden of making the first accusation of misconduct, and the risk of possible error, on attorneys. This seems like abdication by the judges.
No, they don't. If someone cites cases that don't exist, or provides quotes that don't exist, you bring it to the court's attention. You don't need to do a deep dive to figure out how it happened.
And it shouldn't be a "greater workload" since any competent lawyer is already reviewing all the cases cited by the other side.
If an attorney can recognize fictitious citations, so can a judge.
I suppose that's true, but I don't understand how that's relevant here.
And I would not advise you, if a judge chastises you for not alerting the court to your opponent's misconduct, to respond, "Your Honor, stop hassling me. You could've found these fabrications too."
Especially when the court *did* find those fabrications and that's why it came up!
And it shouldn't be a "greater workload" since any competent lawyer is already reviewing all the cases cited by the other side.
Really ? If the other side raises an argument that is, in your expert opinion, entirely fatuous and irrelevant, and which can be knocked down conclusively by three sentences of argument, why would you spend hours chasing down the cases cited in support of the fatuous argument ?
At the client's expense. Oh, I get it.
Lee Moore — If an attorney has a professional obligation to a court, is there any reason why complying with that personal professional obligation is billable to a client?
Yes. You are hiring an attorney to work within the system. And that includes the professional obligations of the lawyer.
A substantive argument? Yes, I’d look up the citation because courts have been known to adopt fatuous arguments and apply them to irrelevant ways.
What I would never bother doing is to cite-check OC’s string-cite for basic uncontroversial points like, say, the de novo standard of appellate review for matters of law. If OC hallucinated a citation to support that, I hope a court wouldn’t seriously expect me to find it.
Or, if an opposing brief cites a case I haven't heard of before for the basic summary judgment rule, I'm not going to spend time seeing if that case is real, so long as the statement of the summary judgment rule is correct.
I would say that if you use AI without checking all the references that is misconduct.
Incorrect AI voting are defacto misconduct, IMO.
AI including false citations should be treated as if the lawyer did it deliberately.
I have long said that I preferred a good attorney on the opposing side to a less capable attorney. The latter often created additional work for me.
I would think that, for a filing riddled with errors, it would be sufficient to point out that there are a number of them without having to take responsibility for identifying every single one. Once there are enough to establish the filing isn’t credible, further effort wouldn’t seem to add any value.
It looks like these judges are commandeering attorneys to do the work of the judges' clerks, to the detriment of litigants who may be billed by the hour.
Red Letter Day.
I'm agreeing with not guilty.
Panic. Checks wallet.
A lawyer who accepts this judicial deputation should keep careful records of the time spent on this, so the costs can be recovered as sanctions.
There is a certain amount of this I'd expect to come from the license but the bulk should be paid as sanctions from those making the false filings, not the clients of good, conscientious lawyers.
That was my first thought, too. If the court is ordering me to do this, I'm absolutely going to try and get the other side to pay for it.
One lawyer (the judge) is requiring another lawyer (mine) to exhaustively cite check a third lawyer's (opposition) filings, and I am expected to foot the bill. Remind me again how this is a real profession that we are expected to respect?
Well, I guess you could represent yourself and see how it works out.
That is not what the court is saying (but shouldn't your lawyer be doing that anyway?) but that if your lawyer finds this they should report it.
Can AI check a list of citations and determine if they actually exist?
Yes. And that AI can certainly tell you that mistakes have or haven't been made, based on context it determines what you want to hear - truth and reality be damned.
So you'll have to manually check your AI's checking of their AI.
As a non-lawyer in the peanut gallery, I would encourage lawyers to put the AI mistake findings at the top of their replies;)
Really *smear* that poop around.
Then destroy the opposition's brief in the body.