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?
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.
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 would say that if you use AI without checking all the references that is misconduct.
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.