A Federal Court Sanctions a Supervising Lawyer, Ordering Training in Supervision and Ethical AI Use

On April 28, 2026, a federal magistrate judge in San Francisco admonished and sanctioned a lawyer for failing to supervise. The order comes from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. There is no dispute, it says, that a brief included "a fake citation to nonexistent law, caused in part by use of AI and ultimately from a lack of care and lack of supervision."

The sanctions include training in supervising junior lawyers and staff, and in the ethical use of AI. The lawyer must also circulate the order to every lawyer and paralegal in the firm, and pay a personal sanction. Parts of the order follow, not the whole.

The Brief and the Supervising Lawyer

The brief was a joint letter on a discovery dispute, filed on July 21, 2025. Two lawyers were named on its signature block as counsel of record. One of them signed it. The court's first order to show cause, this order says, was about a brief that cited at least one nonexistent case and misrepresented the holdings of another.

The lawyer who signed was sanctioned in an earlier order. This order is about the other one: the firm's owner and principal, and the signer's supervisor.

That lawyer did not file a separate response to the first order to show cause and did not appear at its hearing. Later, the lawyer explained not believing the order was directed at a lawyer who had done none of the research or drafting. A later order also went unanswered for a time. In the end the court accepted the lawyer's explanation for those delays and the missed hearing.

At a hearing in November 2025, the lawyer took responsibility for the failure to supervise. The lawyer acknowledged not reading the brief, not checking it personally, and not supervising the signer's use of the AI tool that led to the errors.

The Duties the Order Sets Out

The order states the duty plainly. "At minimum, a supervising lawyer should read and understand the content of all pleadings and check citations to ensure their accuracy." It adds that the duty to check every paper filed in court for accuracy and veracity "is nondelegable to other attorneys or to technology."

Under California's rules of professional conduct, the order says, a lawyer with managerial authority must make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has measures in place. Those measures must give reasonable assurance that its lawyers comply with the rules. It also quotes another federal court on firms: "A firm's silence or absence of policy does not immunize it; it implicates it."

The judge's own standing order applied to the case too. It covers counsel, and parties who represent themselves, who choose to use AI or other automated drafting tools. They must use them with competent "training, knowledge, and understanding of the limitations and risks of such automated tools." It also requires those who use any AI tool to keep records that show they complied, if the court asks. Records of all prompts or inquiries sent to such third-party AI tools are one example.

The Firm's Steps and the Court's Concern

The lawyer described steps the firm had taken since. Staff trainings stressing the duty to check and read all cited case law. Staff sent to a legal technology conference. Weekly cross-training sessions. Paid legal education, with the responsible use of AI encouraged. A software tool to check citations, and staff who read any cited case.

The court said it appreciated the lawyer's taking responsibility. It said the lawyer's actions compare favorably with those of a supervising lawyer in another case. They show, it said, a better understanding of a supervisor's responsibility to put corrective policies and procedures in place. But it noted "some lingering concern." The lawyer's declarations, it said, "do not describe new or specific procedures" for the lawyer personally to check citations in briefs filed as counsel of record.

The firm answered with training, and the court welcomed it. What the court still looked for was a check by the person whose name is on the brief.

The lawyer had also called the false citation a "single and isolated event." The court said that argument "misses the point." Multiple fake citations may be evidence of a pattern of misconduct, it said, but that does not mean a single one is somehow exempt from sanctions. "Many bad acts are worse than a single bad act," it said, "but that does not mean that a single bad act is somehow irreproachable."

The Sanctions

The lawyer must circulate the order to all lawyers and paralegals in the firm. With it go the court's first order to show cause, its further order to show cause, and the lawyer's two responses. The court "highly encourages" everyone who receives them to read them.

Within six months, the lawyer must complete at least four hours of live, in-person legal education from providers approved by the California State Bar. At least two hours must cover "supervision of junior attorneys/staff." At least two must cover the ethical or professional use of AI and large language models in legal practice. The lawyer must then give copies of the course materials to all the firm's lawyers, paralegals and law clerks.

The order gives its reason for that step. The record, it says, indicates that the conduct "resulted from practices or policies" of the firm. Those concerned improper use of AI tools, and failing to perform basic brief-writing tasks such as checking citations for accuracy before filing.

Finally, the court imposed a personal sanction of $1,001. The lawyer must pay it directly and personally, not through the firm, by May 22, 2026. The court said the sanction is for the conduct and to deter the lawyer, and others, from such conduct in future.

The court keeps jurisdiction until the payment, the courses and the certifications are done. It will review the certifications and take further action "if any is needed at that time." No further sanctions, it says, will issue at this time.