Mau v. City and County of Honolulu
U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii · D. Haw. · Hawaii bar guidance
Conduct
Here a defendant's motion cited four cases the court could not locate, and her motion and reply cited real cases for propositions they do not support.
Consequence
Here the court sanctioned two attorneys $1,000 each under Rule 11(b)(2); it did not sanction co-counsel who had no role in drafting, reviewing, or filing.
Lesson
Here the court sanctioned unverified citations under Rule 11 even though it accepted that the attorneys did not use AI.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Mau v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, No. 1:24-cv-00253-GPC-WRP, Order Following Order to Show Cause and Sanctioning Defendant Tanaka's Counsel (D. Haw. Feb. 24, 2026), ECF No. 221; see id., ECF No. 194 (Jan. 30, 2026) (order to show cause)
- Decided
- February 24, 2026
Summary
Defendant Sheri Jean Tanaka's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint cited four cases that the court said "are not identifiable by their Westlaw citations" and, where case numbers were given, could not be located in the relevant courts' filing systems, and her motion and reply cited real cases for propositions or quotations they do not support. On January 30, 2026 (ECF No. 194), the court ordered Tanaka's attorneys to produce the cases or explain how the citations were generated and each attorney's role, and to show cause why they should not be sanctioned under Rule 11 and the court's inherent power. Co-counsel Eric R. Maier declared that he had no role in drafting, reviewing, or filing the motion and reply. Attorneys Crystal Gail K. Glendon and Kelly K. Lee Ponce filed declarations stating that they know the district's generative AI disclosure and certification requirements, that they do not use AI for drafting legal documents, and that the citations were incorrect; they accepted full responsibility but said privilege and ethical obligations prevented them from explaining how the errors occurred. Both sets of counsel moved to withdraw.
- AI tool:
- None found (both sanctioned attorneys declared that they do not use AI for drafting legal documents, and the sanctions order states that they "did not use AI"; they said privilege and ethical obligations prevented them from explaining how the errors occurred)
- Sanction amount:
- $2,000 total ($1,000 against each of two attorneys, personally), payable to the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii within seven days
What sanction did the court impose?
On February 24, 2026 (ECF No. 221), the court found that Glendon and Ponce "violated Rule 11(b)(2) by submitting fake cases without verifying their existence and submitting cases without verifying their legal proposition," and that a hearing was unnecessary because the violation was undisputed. Noting that "both counsel, even though they did not use AI, acknowledge their errors," accepted responsibility, "demonstrated candor," and "did not persist in defending the inaccuracies once identified," it imposed "a modest monetary sanction" of $1,000 against each attorney personally, payable to the court within seven days. Maier was not sanctioned because he was not involved in the conduct. The court found a compliance certification or AI ethics education unnecessary because both attorneys had moved to withdraw and Tanaka had filed her own notice of appearance.
Why does Mau v. City and County of Honolulu matter for law firms using AI?
Mau v. City and County of Honolulu is a Rule 11 sanction for fake and off-point citations in a case where the court accepted that no AI was involved. The show-cause order identified four cases in a defendant’s motion to dismiss that could not be found and several real cases cited for propositions or quotations they do not support, and it required counsel either to produce the cases or to explain how the citations were generated and each attorney’s role.
Two attorneys responded that they do not use AI for drafting, acknowledged that the citations were wrong, and accepted responsibility, but said privilege and ethical obligations prevented them from explaining how the errors happened. A third attorney declared that he had no role in the filings. All of them moved to withdraw.
The court found the Rule 11(b)(2) violation undisputed and imposed $1,000 on each of the two responsible attorneys personally. It described the sanction as modest because counsel were candid and did not persist in defending the inaccuracies once identified, and it declined to add a certification or education requirement because the attorneys were leaving the case. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, here, the court’s analysis did not turn on whether AI was used: the violation was the failure to confirm that cited authority exists and supports the stated proposition.
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.
- Verify every cited case and proposition whatever research method was used. Here the attorneys said they did not use AI, and the court still sanctioned them under Rule 11(b)(2) for failing to verify existence and support.
- Record who drafted, reviewed, and filed each paper. Here co-counsel who declared he had no role in the motion or reply was not sanctioned.
- Note that candor and acceptance of responsibility shaped the sanction here: the court called its $1,000-per-attorney sanction modest and contrasted counsel's conduct with an attorney who delayed admitting the fake opinions and misled the court.
Sources
Primary sources
- CourtListener (primary source)
- CourtListener docket (primary source)
- CourtListener docket (primary source)
- The attorneys' declarations (ECF Nos. 195, 203, 204) were not read; their contents are stated only as the February 24, 2026 order describes them.
- The sanctions order spells the second attorney's name 'Kelly K. Lee Ponce'; the CourtListener docket text spells it 'Kelli.' The order's spelling is used.