Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (1)
N.D. California · Sep 5, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- N.D. California
- Record ID
- anthony-c-hill-v-workday-inc-1-2025-09-05
- Observed outcome
- The court admonished the attorney and ordered her to circulate the court's orders to her firm and complete four hours of live, in-person CLE.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court sanctioned Attorney Katherine Cervantes for filing a brief with a fabricated citation and misrepresented case law. The court ordered the attorney to circulate the relevant court orders to her firm's staff and complete four hours of live, in-person continuing legal education covering law practice management, professional ethics, and the ethical use of AI in legal practice.
The court reasoned that regardless of whether the fake citation originated from CoCounsel or human error, the attorney breached her duty of competence and diligence by failing to verify the existence and accuracy of cited authorities before filing. The court found the attorney's initial explanation of a software 'glitch' implausible given the 'Frankensteinian' nature of the citation, which contained mismatched party names, docket numbers, and dates. The court emphasized that attorneys bear ultimate responsibility for filings and that delegation to staff does not excuse a failure to perform a reasonable inquiry into the law.
This case underscores that courts hold attorneys strictly accountable for the accuracy of citations, regardless of whether AI tools were used. It highlights the judicial rejection of 'software glitch' defenses when citations are demonstrably fabricated and reinforces the non-delegable duty to verify all legal authority.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Employment
- Trial
- Professional
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- CoCounsel
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding fake citations and misrepresented holdings in a Joint Discovery Letter Brief, followed by a hearing and a final order imposing sanctions.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The attorney admitted to using Westlaw's CoCounsel tool.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.