Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesKeaau Development Partnership LLC v. Lawrence
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Keaau Development Partnership LLC v. Lawrence

Hawaii ICA · May 15, 2025

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals sanctioned attorney James D. DiPasquale $100 for violating HRCP Rule 11 by filing a motion containing a fabricated case citation. The court held that the signing attorney is responsible for verifying the accuracy of all authorities, regardless of whether the drafting was delegated to a subordinate.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that under HRCP Rule 11, an attorney must perform a reasonable inquiry into the validity of legal contentions. Citing a nonexistent case without attempting to read it to confirm its holding is not reasonable. The court emphasized that the signing attorney cannot delegate the duty to ensure a filing is factually and legally responsible to subordinates.
Why it matters now
Delegating briefs to per-diem attorneys does not shift the signer's duty to verify every citation before filing.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Reynolds's memorandum cited a nonexistent case, 'Greenspan v. Greenspan,' to argue against the Forgay Doctrine; the court determined no Hawai‘i appellate decision by that title exists and that the pincites correspond to other cases (Roxas; Madison Capital; City of Boulder). Outcome: Monetary sanction against counsel personally; no disciplinary referral.

AI Use

Counsel filed a motion to dismiss appeal that cited “Greenspan v. Greenspan, 121 Hawai‘i 60, 71, 214 P.3d 557, 568 (App. 2009).” The court found that:No Hawai‘i case titled Greenspan v. Greenspan existsThe citations to “121 Hawai‘i 60” and “214 P.3d 568” were in fact to other real cases (Estate of Roxas v. Marcos and Colorado Court of Appeals cases), suggesting a garbled AI-generated fabricationCounsel admitted delegating the brief to a per diem attorney and failing to verify the citation before filing

Ruling/Sanction

$100 sanction imposed on counsel personallyPayment to be made to the Supreme Court Clerk of Hawai‘i within seven daysDiPasquale ordered to file a declaration attesting to payment.The amount reflects counsel’s candor and corrective measures, but the court noted that federal courts have imposed higher sanctions in similar cases.

Operational lesson

Delegating briefs to per-diem attorneys does not shift the signer's duty to verify every citation before filing.

Record details

HawaiiSingle-state evidence scope
Explore HIOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtHawaii ICA
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMay 15, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court imposed a $100 monetary sanction against counsel personally, payable to the Supreme Court Clerk, and required a declaration of payment.
Known amount$100
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

Counsel stated he did not personally use AI, but the court identified the error as a fabricated citation.

Procedural posture

Order to show cause and subsequent imposition of sanctions by the Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawaii.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Reynolds's memorandum cited a nonexistent case, 'Greenspan v. Greenspan,' to argue against the Forgay Doctrine; the court determined no Hawai‘i appellate decision by that title exists and that the pincites correspond to other cases (Roxas; Madison Capital; City of Boulder).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Keaau Development Partnership LLC v. Lawrence?
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals sanctioned attorney James D. DiPasquale $100 for violating HRCP Rule 11 by filing a motion containing a fabricated case citation. The court held that the signing attorney is responsible for verifying the accuracy of all authorities, regardless of whether the drafting was delegated to a subordinate.
Why does Keaau Development Partnership LLC v. Lawrence matter for legal AI risk?
Delegating briefs to per-diem attorneys does not shift the signer's duty to verify every citation before filing.
What does the public record establish about Keaau Development Partnership LLC v. Lawrence?
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.
Which source supports this Keaau Development Partnership LLC v. Lawrence summary?
The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.