Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A federal magistrate judge in Indianapolis is calling for a Texas-based attorney who practices in Indiana to pay $15,000 and be considered for further discipline after he submitted briefs to the court containing citations to non-existent cases that were obtained using artificial intelligence.
Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore issued a written recommendation last month calling for disciplinary action against attorney Rafael Ramirez of Rio Hondo, Texas.
In a brief filed last year, Ramirez cited a court case that Dinsmore said he couldn’t locate.
When the judge asked for the correct citation, Ramirez filed a notice stating he couldn’t locate the case, acknowledged that the citation was in error, and withdrew it, court documents show.
In December, the judge explained that “filing a brief with a non-existent citation falls far short of an attorney’s duty to the Court, his client, and opposing counsel,” and ordered Ramirez to appear in-person to show cause as to why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for violating a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
That order also noted that a non-exhaustive review of Ramirez’s other filings in the same case found citations in two other briefs that the judge couldn’t locate.
During a Jan. 3 hearing, Ramirez admitted that he relied on programs utilizing generative artificial intelligence to draft the briefs and didn’t know AI could generate fictitious cases and citations.
The “hallucination cites” included text excerpts that appeared to be credible, Ramirez said.
Ramirez said he has since taken continuing legal education courses on AI use and continues to use AI products that will not produce “hallucination cites.” He said that while he did not fully comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at no point did he act in bad faith or proceed with malice.
“I acknowledge my error and take full responsibility for the oversight,” Ramirez told The Indiana Lawyer in an emailed statement. “I am deeply committed to the legal profession and strive to uphold its standards and rules. I fully expect and accept being held accountable when my actions may violate its tenets. I harbor no ill will toward the court, opposing counsel, or any other party involved. I am committed to full accountability, transparency, and unwavering respect for the judicial process.”
The judge notes in his recommendation that the courts have several times held that failing to check the treatment, soundness, and existence of a case warrants sanctions. He further states that modern legal research tools using features like Westlaw’s KeyCite and Lexis’s Shephardization enables attorneys to “easily fulfill this basic duty.”
“It is one thing to use AI to assist with initial research, and even non-legal AI programs may provide a helpful 30,000-foot view. It is an entirely different thing, however, to rely on the output of a generative AI program without verifying the current treatment or validity—or, indeed, the very existence—of the case presented. Confirming a case is good law is a basic, routine matter and something to be expected from a practicing attorney,” the judge wrote.
Judge Dinsmore also argues Ramirez violated rules 1.1, 3.1, and 3.3 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct.
The judge recommends that Ramirez be sanctioned $5,000 for each of the three briefs he filed that included fictitious case law. He also referred the matter of Ramirez’s conduct to Indiana Supreme Court Chief Judge Loretta Rush for consideration of any further discipline under state rules.
The case is In Re: Rafael Ramirez, 1:25-mc-00013-TWP-MJD.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.