Mata v. Avianca, Inc.

What sanction did the court impose?

$5,000 monetary penalty jointly and severally against Schwartz, LoDuca, and the Levidow firm, payable into the Registry of the Court within 14 days. Respondents ordered to send individual letters with the sanctions opinion, the June 8 hearing transcript, and the April 25 affirmation (with exhibits) to plaintiff Roberto Mata and to each sitting judge falsely identified as the author of one of the six fabricated opinions. The court declined to impose 28 U.S.C. section 1927 sanctions or to refer the matter for criminal forgery prosecution. No notice of appeal was filed; the case terminated July 7, 2023.

Why does Mata v. Avianca, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?

Mata v. Avianca is the canonical federal AI hallucination sanctions case and the order that bar associations, malpractice carriers, and dozens of subsequent courts cite as the cautionary precedent for unverified AI-generated authority. The opinion crystallizes three rules-based exposures: Rule 11’s reasonable inquiry duty is non-delegable to an AI tool; Model Rule 5.3’s supervision logic reaches firm-level oversight of AI-assisted work product (the firm was sanctioned alongside the individual attorneys); and Rule 3.3 candor is tested most acutely after a citation is challenged, where the cheaper path is immediate disclosure rather than defense. The aggravating fact in Mata was not the original ChatGPT misuse but Schwartz’s continued defense of the fabricated citations, including production of additional ChatGPT-fabricated opinion excerpts during the show-cause proceedings.

State bar ethics opinions in the District of Columbia, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Oregon explicitly invoke Mata as the predicate concern motivating their AI guidance. Federal court orders citing or motivated by Mata include N.D. Tex. Bankruptcy General Order 2023-03 (issued the day before the sanctions opinion as the show-cause proceedings unfolded) and the New Jersey Notice to the Bar on AI. The Second Circuit’s first published AI-hallucination sanction, Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024), arrived roughly seven months later in the same enforcement line.