Regulation
The Ninth Circuit adopted a circuit-wide rule requiring counsel to certify that every authority cited in a brief has been checked against a primary source. The rule does not require disclosure of AI use. Judges may strike a brief and order re-filing at counsel's expense. The court said it chose verification over disclosure because the risk is unverified content, not the tool.
A Southern District of New York judge imposed sanctions on two lawyers whose brief cited six cases that do not exist, referring both to the state bar and ordering them to notify their client. The court found the citations were generated by an AI research tool and filed without verification. Sanctions include a monetary penalty and mandatory continuing education. The opinion sets out a verification standard that the court says it will apply to future filings across its docket.
Corrected . An earlier version of this card said the penalty was $7,500. Reuters and Law360 report $5,000; Bloomberg Law reports $7,500. The summary now states the sanction without a figure and the key point carries both.
Read the long piece on LexRegisterA Northern District of Illinois judge approved a model discovery protocol governing the use of AI-assisted review, requiring parties to disclose the tool, the validation method and the recall achieved. The protocol does not require disclosure of seed sets or training decisions. It was drafted with input from both sides' e-discovery vendors and is offered for adoption in other matters.