A California Court of Appeal has sanctioned a San Diego-area attorney $1,500 for including a fake quotation from a real case as well as a citation to a fabricated decision in defense of a criminal case.
In People v. Alvarez, the Fourth District Court of Appeals imposed the sanction against attorney LeRoy George Siddell, highlighting the seriousness of the matter because it involved a criminal defendant.
Specifically, the Court held:
“When criminal defense attorneys fail to comply with their ethical obligations, their conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system. It also damages their credibility and potentially impugns the validity of the arguments they make on behalf of their clients, calling into question their competency and ability to ensure defendants are provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Thus, criminal defense attorneys must make every effort to confirm that the legal citations they supply exist and accurately reflect the law for which they are cited.”
In the underlying case, Siddell filed an opposition to a motion which included a fabricated quote from an earlier case and referenced a legal opinion that did not exist. Following an Order to Show Cause from the Court, Sidell admitted to using artificial intelligence to craft the opposition and admitted failing to check the underlying information prior to submit the brief. Specifically, the Court ruled:
“Attorney Siddell admitted to violating his professional duty by including a hallucinated citation and misrepresenting the law provided in other opinions. We infer he knowingly made a false statement based on this admission….He also violated rule 8.1115(a) of the California Rules of Court, which prohibits citation to unpublished opinions, because he cited a non-existent case, and rule 8.276(a)(4), which prohibits attorneys from committing unreasonable violations of the Rules of Court, because he misrepresented the substance of cases in filings before this court.”
This decision follows last month’s decision by the same Appellate Court in Noland v. Land of the Free L.P., in which civil attorney Amir Mostafavi was sanctioned $10,000 for filing a brief containing fabricated legal citations adduced from artificial intelligence in a civil matter. Both cases were reported to the California State Bar.
These cases continue the highlight the risks and perils that come with relying upon artificial intelligence in the professional world. While artificial intelligence can be a valuable and time-saving resource, businesses are cautioned to independently validate any information obtained through artificial intelligence to ensure its accuracy before submitting the information; especially to governmental agencies.
