Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (federal)

Dehghani v. Castro, No. 2:25-cv-00052-MIS-DLM (D.N.M.)

·US District Court, District of New Mexico·US-FEDSanctions

In the US District Court for the District of New Mexico, Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez sanctioned attorney Felipe D.J. Millan $1,500 under Rule 11 for filing a brief, bought from a LAWCLERK freelancer, citing six non-existent cases; he was also ordered to self-report to the New Mexico and Texas bars. District Judge Strickland affirmed on 9 May 2025.

Court
US District Court, District of New Mexico
Date
2025-04-02
Who used the AI
Lawyer
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
Immigration attorney Felipe D.J. Millan filed a habeas response brief he had purchased for $750 from freelance attorney Janelle M. Lewis via LAWCLERK without reading or verifying it; it cited at least six non-existent cases, which the court said were likely AI hallucinations. Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez found a Rule 11(b)(2) violation; District Judge Margaret Strickland affirmed on 9 May 2025.
Outcome
Sanctions
Penalty
US$1,500
Regulatory outcome
New Mexico and Texas state bar disciplinary boards (self-report ordered); Lewis reported to New York state bar: Court ordered self-report with copy of order; bar dispositions not confirmed (2025-04-02)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-04

What was fabricated or misused

  • Moncada v. Ruiz, 518 F. Supp 3d 708 (D.N.M. 2021) — one of the non-existent cases in the purchased response
  • Vega-Mendoza v. Homeland Security, 382 F. Supp 3d 1209 (D.N.M. 2019) — one of the non-existent cases in the purchased response
  • Morales v. ICE Field Office Director, 541 F. Supp 3d 1154 (D.N.M. 2021) — one of the non-existent cases in the purchased response
  • Meza v. United States Attorney General, 130 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (N.D. Tex. 2015) — one of the non-existent cases in the purchased response
  • Hernandez v. Sessions, 298 F. Supp. 3d 1366 (D.N.M. 2018) — one of the non-existent cases in the purchased response
  • Ramirez v. DHS, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.N.M. 2020) — one of the non-existent cases in the purchased response
  • Thirteen remaining cases in the purchased response — did not support the propositions stated in the quoted language, and the quoted language was not from the cited cases

What the court said

“he “did not read the caselaw or verify the cases used in support of the propositions” before he signed and filed the response brief.”
US District Court, District of New Mexico, p. 4
“The six cases were fake and likely the handiwork of a ChatGPT or similar artificial intelligence (AI) program’s hallucinations.”
US District Court, District of New Mexico, p. 7
“While the Court acknowledges that Mr. Millan was sincerely apologetic for his failure to ensure cases cited in his brief existed and for the extra work this has caused the Court, he has nonetheless failed to adhere to his obligations under Rule 11.”
US District Court, District of New Mexico, p. 10
“Mr. Millan clearly violated Rule 11(b) and sanctions are appropriate.”
US District Court, District of New Mexico, Doc. 35 p. 8

Timeline

  1. Dehghani filed a Section 2241 habeas petition.
  2. Millan filed the purchased response brief containing non-existent and unsupported authorities.
  3. Court ordered Millan to produce PDFs or appear for a show-cause hearing.
  4. Millan responded, filed an amended brief and disclosed the LAWCLERK outsourcing.
  5. Court held the in-person sanctions hearing.
  6. Magistrate judge imposed a $1,500 fine, CLE, vendor notice and bar reports.
  7. District judge affirmed the sanctions and extended the self-report deadline.

Why this case matters

Dehghani extends the tracker beyond direct AI use by counsel. The sanctioned lawyer bought a $750 brief through LAWCLERK and said a freelance attorney drafted the false material, yet the court treated the signature as his Rule 11 certification. Compared with Benjamin v. Costco, the court added vendor notice, AI/legal-ethics education, bar self-reporting and a report of the freelance lawyer. District Judge Strickland's May order also confirmed that self-reporting was an available sanction even without a bad-faith finding.

Practice note

Outsourcing legal research does not outsource Rule 11. The filing lawyer should require the contractor to provide source PDFs or database links, open each cited case, and verify each quotation before signature. Engagement terms should preserve work product long enough to audit it if a court asks how the research was done.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.

Similar incidents on the record

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Dehghani v. Castro, No. 2:25-cv-00052-MIS-DLM (D.N.M.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/dehghani-v-castro (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →