Ninth Circuit draws the line on AI briefs

For 2 years, the sanctioned lawyers and all attorneys at their firm must include a statement under penalty of perjury in all future filings disclosing whether generative Al was used, naming the tool, and certifying that the signing attorney personally reviewed the filing and verified that all citations and quotations refer to existing authority. This opinion's treatment of hallucinations is more sophisticated than the usual fake-case discourse by distinguishing between fabrications (fake cases & fake quotes) vs. inaccuracies. Inaccuracies are more dangerous IMO: real authorities used for propositions they do not support, party arguments presented as holdings, distinctions ignored, etc. These are more nefarious but not uncommon to find in opponents' briefs even pre-Al. "The rules are not violated at the point of research and drafting, but at the point of signing and filing." Meaning Al cannot occupy the professional responsibility in which a signing attorney evaluates whether the cited authority actually supports the proposition being presented to the tribunal. Hallucinated authority is rarely just one bad cite. Once a lawyer's workflow permits fake law to enter a filed brief, the problem is systemic until proven otherwise.