Attorneys used AI to write court filings, cited fake legal decisions, State Bar alleges - BERITAJA

Three attorneys are facing subject from the State Bar of California aft allegations that they cited nonexistent ineligible decisions successful submitted tribunal documents that were written utilizing artificial intelligence.

The State Bar of California precocious revenge notices of disciplinary charges against Omid Emile Khalifeh, an lawyer based successful Los Angeles, and Steven Thomas Romeyn, an lawyer based successful Scottsdale, Ariz., accusing them of misusing AI. The State Bar Court has not ruled connected the allegations.

The State Bar Court this period besides approved a group of disciplinary measures against Sepideh Ardestani, a Beverly Hills attorney, who was sanctioned for submitting nonexistent and erroneous citations successful a March 2025 national tribunal filing.

Khalifeh, Ardestani and Romeyn could not instantly beryllium reached for comment.

In California, attorneys are allowed to usage generative AI tools to draught ineligible documents. However, they are responsible for verifying each accusation included successful their filings.

Chief proceedings counsel George Cardona said the 3 cases show really justness is undermined erstwhile attorneys neglect to corroborate the accuracy of their submissions to the court. AI devices are known to hallucinate, aliases dress up information.

“Courts and clients must beryllium capable to spot that the filings attorneys taxable are accurate, supported, and compliant pinch master standards,” he said successful a connection Monday. “Technology could assistance ineligible practice, but it does not switch an attorney’s work of competence, diligence, and honesty.”

The State Bar has revenge six misconduct charges against Khalifeh related to his alleged misuse of AI successful a trademark lawsuit revenge successful national tribunal successful Los Angeles.

Khalifeh is accused of submitting a citation of 1 lawsuit that did not beryllium and 2 citations that were not applicable to the arguments for which they were cited successful an April 2025 document. He is besides accused of violating the court’s opinionated order, effective Jan. 28, 2025, that requires attorneys disclose immoderate usage of generative AI erstwhile submitting filings.

When the tribunal flagged these concerns, Khalifeh responded saying he had utilized AI, but insisted that each citations included successful the little came from existent judicial decisions.

“Following drafting, I reviewed, revised, and supplemented each portions of the brief, including those that were informed by the usage of Lexis+ AI aliases based connected anterior templates,” he wrote successful May 2025. “I independently verified the actual and ineligible accuracy of the contented and confirmed that each arguments and authorities were due to the issues presented.”

The tribunal responded by erstwhile again raising concerns that 1 citation was nonexistent and 2 different AI-assisted citations had only “tenuous” relevance to the lawsuit astatine hand. Khalifeh past admitted he couldn’t verify the beingness of 1 citation and withdrew it from the filing.

Romeyn is accused of submitting irrelevant and nonexistent citations successful an October 2025 filing for a individual wounded lawsuit successful Orange County Superior Court.

Once the tribunal flagged concerns, Romeyn disclosed utilizing AI and admitted that he had reviewed and verified respective of the citations but did not verify each azygous citation anterior to filing.

The State Bar Court will norm connected whether Romeyn and Khalifeh committed master misconduct and could urge that their licenses to believe rule beryllium suspended aliases that the attorneys beryllium disbarred. The California Supreme Court determines whether to enforce the recommended discipline.

Ardestani, the Beverly Hills attorney, admitted that she was not forthcoming regarding her usage of nonexistent and erroneous citations successful filings for a wage-and-hour class-action title revenge successful national tribunal successful Sacramento successful March 2025.

She did not admit to utilizing AI but claimed that the incorrect citations were a consequence of her handwritten notes from different matter. She did not supply immoderate documents to support these explanations, according to the State Bar Court.

The Eastern District of California said the clip it spent reviewing her alleged misconduct was a “waste of constricted clip and judicial resources successful a territory that has labored nether a longstanding caseload crisis.”

The disciplinary stipulation approved by the State Bar Court connected April 6 calls for a one-year play of probation pinch conditions including a 30-day suspension of Ardestani’s license. She must besides complete 10 hours of continuing ineligible acquisition focused connected technology, including astatine slightest 5 hours focused connected the benefits and risks of AI devices successful ineligible work.