El Bitar v. Hernandez
U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, Tacoma · W.D. Wash. · Washington bar guidance
Conduct
Per counsel's declaration, interns used Google Gemini for habeas briefing; the signing attorney filed fabricated quotations attributed to two Ninth Circuit cases unchecked.
Consequence
Here the court fined the drafting attorney $1,000 with a public reprimand and reprimanded, without fining, local counsel who signed but delegated her Rule 11 duty.
Lesson
In this case the court counted counsel's prompt, candid disclosure against a severe sanction, but held the signer, not the interns or the tool, responsible.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- El Bitar v. Hernandez, No. 2:26-cv-00919-TMC, Order on Sanctions (W.D. Wash. June 2, 2026) (Cartwright, J.), ECF No. 23
- Decided
- June 2, 2026
Summary
In an immigration habeas case, the petition and traverse filed for Fadi El Bitar cited Thai v. Ashcroft and Nadarajah v. Gonzales for the proposition that post-removal-order detention may violate due process even within the six-month presumptively reasonable period of Zadvydas v. Davis. The court found that neither case supported the assertion, that "[t]he quoted text Petitioner included did not exist," and that the petitioners in both cases had been detained well beyond six months. On April 30, 2026 it found the errors appeared to be "the result of using generative artificial intelligence without checking the citations generated by the program" and ordered counsel to show cause under Rule 11, account for every incorrect citation, explain how the citations were generated, and name any AI programs used. Within 24 hours the drafting attorney, Julian Mansoor Daman, filed a declaration averring that "a group of legal interns" had used Google Gemini to generate text used in the filings, that the program "fabricated the quotes and confidently presented this information as binding Ninth Circuit precedent," that the interns did not tell him and had since been let go, and that his "critical failure under Rule 11 was relying on [his] interns' research without conducting his own independent verification of its authenticity."
- AI tool:
- Google Gemini (per drafting counsel's sworn declaration, used by legal interns who researched the filings)
- Sanction amount:
- $1,000 personal sanction on drafting attorney Julian Mansoor Daman, payable to the Clerk within 21 days, with a public reprimand; reprimand, without a fine, of local counsel Jennifer Nimer
What sanction did the court impose?
Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright held that by signing the briefs, counsel, "rather than his interns or the artificial intelligence program they used," presented the fabricated quotations to the court, citing Pavelic & LeFlore for the rule that a signing attorney cannot delegate that responsibility. Weighing counsel's prompt admission and explanation, the absence of any record of similar violations, and the fact that the court disregarded the citations so they did not affect the habeas proceedings, the court found a $1,000 personal sanction on Daman, together with the order's public reprimand, sufficient to deter future abuse. Local counsel Jennifer Nimer had not drafted the briefs, but as a signing attorney she had a nondelegable duty to ensure they were supported by existing law; the court did not fine her "on this occasion" but reprimanded her for improperly delegating her Rule 11 obligations to the pro hac vice attorney she had sponsored. The show-cause order was discharged.
Why does El Bitar v. Hernandez matter for law firms using AI?
In El Bitar the court weighed counsel’s response to the show-cause order in setting the sanction. The April 30 show-cause order asked for a full accounting of the bad citations, an explanation of how they were generated, and the names of any AI programs used. Counsel answered the same day, identified Google Gemini, explained that interns had used it without telling him, and accepted responsibility for failing to verify their work. The court treated that candor, the absence of prior violations, and the lack of any effect on the habeas proceedings as reasons against a severe sanction, and it pointed to fines of $1,000 to $5,000 imposed by other courts for similar conduct.
The court was equally clear that none of this moved responsibility off the signer. Relying on Pavelic & LeFlore, it held that the signing attorney cannot leave it to subordinates to ensure a filing is legally sound, and it quoted Oneto v. Watson for the point that whether AI drafted the brief is “of no consequence” when the result is a false statement about the law.
The order also reaches local counsel. Although she did not draft the briefs, her signature carried a nondelegable duty, and the court reprimanded her while noting it would not fine her “on this occasion.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the court reprimanded local counsel who signed but delegated her Rule 11 duty to the pro hac vice attorney she sponsored.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Review intern and law-clerk research before it reaches a signed brief. The court held that by signing, counsel, not his interns or their AI program, presented the fabricated quotations.
- Document local counsel's review of filings. The court reprimanded local counsel who had no role in drafting for delegating her Rule 11 obligations to the pro hac vice attorney she sponsored.
- Consider the value of a prompt, specific response to a show-cause order. The court listed counsel's quick declaration admitting fault and explaining the origin of the citations among the facts weighing against a severe sanction.
- Train staff to disclose AI use to the supervising attorney. Counsel's declaration stated that the interns did not tell him they had used Gemini.
Sources
Primary sources
- The identification of Google Gemini rests on counsel's sworn declaration (Dkt. 13) as the order recounts it; the court did not independently determine the tool.