Ramirez v. Humala
E.D. New York · May 13, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- E.D. New York
- Record ID
- ramirez-v-humala-2025-05-13
- Observed outcome
- Monetary sanction jointly imposed on counsel and firm; order to inform client
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,000
Why this matter warrants attention
Outcome: Monetary sanction jointly imposed on counsel and firm; order to inform client.
The court found subjective bad faith due to the complete absence of verification. It cited a range of other AI-related sanction decisions, underscoring that even outsourcing to a “diligent and trusted” paralegal is not a defense when due diligence is absent
Paralegal AI research must be verified by the signing attorney; trust is not a defense to Rule 11.
Failure modes and consequences
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,000
- Procedural posture
- Monetary sanction jointly imposed on counsel and firm; order to inform client
reason.com
Secondary or other linked source. The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.
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 current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Secondary Source Only (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.