Lnu, et al. v. Bondi
CA California · Nov 4, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Ninth Circuit sanctioned two attorneys $2,500 each and suspended them from practice for submitting briefs containing fabricated case law and misattributed quotations. The court held that attorneys are responsible for verifying all cited authorities, regardless of whether the errors originated from generative AI or human research, and that the attorneys' failure to disclose the nature of these errors constituted a breach of the duty of candor.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law || Fabricated: Case Law || False Quotes: Case Law || False Quotes: Case Law
- Why it matters now
- Treat every AI-drafted brief as unverified until a human checks each citation against Westlaw or Lexis.
Why this matter is tracked
In Lnu et al. v. Bondi, the Ninth Circuit sanctioned two attorneys, Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds, for filing briefs containing fabricated case citations and misattributed quotations. The court found that the attorneys failed to verify the accuracy of their filings, violating procedural and ethical rules. Although the attorneys claimed the errors were typographical and denied using generative AI, the court emphasized that the source of the error—whether human or AI-generated—is secondary to the attorney's duty to ensure the accuracy of all cited authorities. The panel imposed a $2,500 sanction on each attorney and suspended them from practice before the court, citing a repeated failure of candor regarding the nature and origin of the errors.
Treat every AI-drafted brief as unverified until a human checks each citation against Westlaw or Lexis.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court noted the attorneys denied using AI, but the court treated the errors as potential AI hallucinations.
Disciplinary order issued by the Ninth Circuit following an Order to Show Cause regarding the submission of briefs containing fabricated citations and misrepresentations of law.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law
- Fabricated: Case Law
- False Quotes: Case Law
- False Quotes: Case Law
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Lnu, et al. v. Bondi?
- The Ninth Circuit sanctioned two attorneys $2,500 each and suspended them from practice for submitting briefs containing fabricated case law and misattributed quotations. The court held that attorneys are responsible for verifying all cited authorities, regardless of whether the errors originated from generative AI or human research, and that the attorneys' failure to disclose the nature of these errors constituted a breach of the duty of candor.
- Why does Lnu, et al. v. Bondi matter for legal AI risk?
- Treat every AI-drafted brief as unverified until a human checks each citation against Westlaw or Lexis.
- What does the public record establish about Lnu, et al. v. Bondi?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Lnu, et al. v. Bondi summary?
- The recorded source is govinfo.gov. It is classified as official court or government source; 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.