Almeida Porfirio v. Mullin

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

It is not acceptable to submit filings to the Court containing false, misleading, or nonexistent quotations or authorities. Such conduct contravenes an attorney’s duty toward their client to exercise professional judgment and responsibility. See Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 614 (2d Cir. 2024). In particular, Rule 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[b]y presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper,” an attorney “certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). Furthermore, Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct provides that an attorney “shall not knowingly . . . [m]ake a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.” D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 3.3(a)(1). The Court agrees with the Second Circuit that, at minimum, such rules “require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely.” Park, 91 F.4th at 615. Courts have taken diverse disciplinary actions against attorneys who have filed pleadings and other court papers citing nonexistent legal authorities and quotations, ranging from striking the pleadings, see, e.g., Grant v. City of Long Beach, 96 F.4th 1255, 1256–57 (9th Cir. 2024); to ordering counsel to show cause why sanctions should not issue, see, e.g., Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461, 2023 WL 3696209, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2023); and referring counsel to a court’s grievance panel, see, e.g., Park, 91 F.4th at 612. At this juncture, however, it would be premature for the Court to find that anything improper was done in the preparation of the opposition brief, and the Court makes no such finding at this time. After all, counsel for Ms. Porfirio has had no opportunity to address the Court’s concerns. And the Court will not open an inquiry into the brief’s preparation at this time because, as explained above, it is transferring this case to another district and will leave to the sound judgment of the transferee court how to handle the matter. But the Court notes that the brief’s citation to nonexistent quotations and cases as well as its misstatements of law bear the hallmarks of reliance on an artificial intelligence tool.

Authorities cited in the passage: Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024) · Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) · D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) · Grant v. City of Long Beach, 96 F.4th 1255 (9th Cir. 2024) · Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461, 2023 WL 3696209 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2023) · Williams v. Capital One Bank, N.A., No. 24-cv-2032, 2025 WL 843285 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2025)