| Court - Judge Name | Applicable To | Categories | ||
| D.N.M. - Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez | 4/2/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI | In Dehghani v. Castro, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63641, the Court sanctioned an attorney who filed a brief containing numerous non-existent cases. The filing attorney admitted that he hired a freelance attorney (through the legal service “LAWCLERK”) to draft a response to an order to show cause and that he did not read the caselaw or verify the cases cited by the freelance attorney before filing the brief. The court ruled that the attorney had “violated Rule 11(b)(2) by (i) improperly delegating his duties to another attorney by submitting that attorney's work without adequately reviewing it and verifying its accuracy, (ii) submitting a response to the [order] that cited non-existent cases, and (iii) cited case law that does not support [the] stated proposition.” The court imposed various sanctions on the attorney including a fine of $1,500, sending a copy of the order to LAWCLERK, completing a one-hour CLE course on AI and legal ethics, self-reporting to both New Mexico and Texas state bars disciplinary boards, and reporting the freelance attorney to the New York state bar disciplinary board. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences | ||||
| D.N.M. – Judge William P. Johnson | 2/15/2024 | Any AI | Any AI Usage | In Morgan v. Cmty. Against Violence, Judge Johnson cautioned a pro se plaintiff in October 2023 who “cited to several fake or nonexistent opinions” that “any future filings with citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions such as the pleading being stricken, filing restrictions imposed, or the case being dismissed.” 2023 WL 6976510. Then, in its January 2024 order, after finding that the plaintiff had submitted “additional citations to ‘hallucinated’ cases,” the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, citing both the court’s inherent sanctioning authority as well as the fact the alleged legal and factual matters are “totally devoid of any legal merit.” 2024 WL 218410. The court denied plaintiff’s ensuing motion for reconsideration in February 2024, and further ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not escalate sanctions to further prohibit her from entering new filings without legal representation, citing her “[m]eritless complaints, citations to hallucinated cases, a failure to adhere to filing deadlines, and a violation of the local rules.” 2024 WL 639860. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences |
New Mexico
Jump to:
