Gregoire v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

What sanction did the court impose?

The court found that Ms. Barsotti violated Rule 11(b)(2) by signing and filing a brief without a reasonable inquiry into the authorities cited, and that submitting fictitious cases also violated California Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1(a)(2), 3.3(a)(1), and 3.3(a)(2). It imposed four sanctions: a $1,000 sanction against Ms. Barsotti personally, payable to the Clerk within 21 days; service of the order on her client within seven days; a declaration within 60 days certifying completion of at least one hour of CLE on the ethical use of artificial intelligence in the practice of law; and service of the order on the State Bar of California by the Clerk. The court stated that it "does not prohibit or oppose the use of artificial intelligence in legal advocacy, so long as counsel independently verifies the accuracy of AI-generated content as required under Rule 11," and that Ms. Barsotti had provided no reason for her failure to do so. The April 27 show-cause order was discharged.

Why does Gregoire v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District matter for law firms using AI?

Gregoire is a short order about a lawyer who did not answer. Judge Hixson found three of four cited cases unlocatable and, rather than decide whether AI was involved, asked counsel to say. The show-cause order was specific: identify each cited statement verbatim by page and line, explain its origin and “whether any generative artificial intelligence tool was used in preparing any portion of the filing, and, if so, which tool(s) and how they were used,” set out the verification steps taken, and correct the citations. Ms. Barsotti filed nothing.

The court therefore did not find that AI was used. Its analysis rests on Rule 11 and the California Rules of Professional Conduct (3.1(a)(2), 3.3(a)(1), and 3.3(a)(2)), not on any AI finding: an attorney who submits fake cases “clearly has not read those nonexistent cases,” and so could not have certified that the brief’s legal contentions were warranted by existing law. The order adds that the lapse “further suggests a failure to keep abreast of changes in relevant technology” under California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1, quoting Oneto v. Watson.

The four sanctions imposed (a $1,000 fine, service on the client, AI-ethics CLE, and service on the State Bar of California) match the components the order’s parenthetical describes for Oneto, one of several cases it surveyed. The order sits within a case already marked by missed deadlines, and on the same day the court issued a separate show-cause order about the accuracy of counsel’s declaration explaining those delays. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this case, a written response to the citation order was counsel’s opportunity to be heard.