[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of the author.]
Judicial decisions involving “hallucinated” citations provided by GenAI are more common than mosquitoes in a swamp. A recent decision addresses supervisory obligations and looked at “institutional culture” of the law firm:
Lawyers owe a duty of candor to the Court, a duty that cannot be met without reading and understanding the legal authorities on which their arguments rely. When lawyers fail to check citations in a brief prior to filing, as discussed at length previously…, or when they materially misrepresent the facts or holdings in a case, they breach their professional and ethical obligations. Moreover, managerial and senior lawyers have professional and ethical duties to the Court, their clients, and their employees to appropriately supervise the work performed. See Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct r. 5.1. At minimum, a supervising lawyer should read and understand the content of all pleadings and check citations to ensure their accuracy. Managers in law firms have an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure all lawyers in the firm make ethical representations to the Court.
Hill v. Workday, Inc., 2026 WL 1146289 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2026)(emphasis added).
Managerial and senior lawyers have professional and ethical duties to the Court, their clients, and their employees to appropriately supervise the work performed.
Hill v. Workday, Inc., 2026 WL 1146289 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2026).
While attorney names are published in the decision, I have anonymized them here.
The Hill court wrote that: “Supervisors who do not draft or sign submissions to the court, but who remain counsel of record and fail to question the accuracy of defective pleadings, fail in their duty of supervision.” Id. at *1. It wrote that: “Thus, the lawyer whose name appears on a court filing has an affirmative duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law before filing.” Id. at *3 (emphasis in original; quotations and citation omitted).
The Hill court added:
With respect to the responsibilities of managerial and supervisory attorneys, the Rules require such attorneys to “make reasonable[ ] efforts to ensure that the firm[ ] has in effect measures giving reasonable[ ] assurance that all lawyers in the firm[ ] comply with these rules and the State Bar Act.” Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct r. 5.1(a). A direct supervisor of another lawyer is required to “make reasonable[ ] efforts to ensure that the other lawyer complies with these rules and the State Bar Act.” Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct r. 5.1(b). “A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer’s violation” if the lawyer “possesses managerial authority in the law firm[ ] in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer … and knows[ ] of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable[ ] remedial action.” Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct r. 5.1(c)(2). The State Bar states in comments for Rule 5.1(c) that “[a] supervisory lawyer violates paragraph (b) by failing to make the efforts required under that paragraph, even if the lawyer does not violate paragraph (c) by knowingly[ ] directing or ratifying the conduct, or where feasible, failing to take reasonable[ ] remedial action.” Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct r. 5.1 cmt. 7.
Id. at *5 (emphasis added).
The Hill court applied “a three-part analytical framework… which includes consideration of factors such as ‘accountability and supervision,’ or the conduct of the supervising attorneys and safeguards at the firm level to prevent recurrence.” Id. at *5 (citation omitted).
In this analysis, a court’s “inquiry extends beyond the drafter to the institutional culture that permitted unverified authority to reach the docket. A firm’s silence or absence of policy does not immunize it; it implicates it.”
Id.
Additionally, the “Court notes that, while delegation may be appropriate in many circumstances, counsel bears ultimate responsibility for filings submitted to the Court.” Id. at *8. It added: “Thus, while Attorney AAAA has stressed training and education of himself and his staff, the Court notes with some lingering concern that Attorney AAAA’s declarations do not describe new or specific procedures for he himself to check citations in briefs which are filed under his name as counsel of record.” Id. The court concluded:
Finally, because Attorney AAAA has admitted his ultimate responsibility as counsel of record, as supervisor of attorney BBBB, and as owner/principal of his namesake firm for the issues, policies, and practices that gave rise to the conduct at issue here, the Court exercises its discretion and PERSONALLY SANCTIONS Attorney AAAA $1,001 (one thousand and one dollars), for his conduct herein and to deter him (and others) from such conduct in future.
Id.
On a related topic, see Court Suggests That Opposing Counsel Also Failed to Check Citations (Apr. 14, 2026).
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.
