Perez-Castillo v. Blanche

What sanction did the court impose?

In a published opinion by Chief Judge Brennan, the Court denied the petition for review on the merits and imposed a $5,000 fine on Salah under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) because he "failed to check the AI-hallucinated citations, legal propositions, and factual representations in two briefs he signed and submitted to this court." It held both versions of the brief violated FRAP 28 and declined to bar Salah from practice before the Court, warning that a further incident could lead to disbarment. Finding no evidence that Chalisa committed fraud on the court and nothing in her response indicating bad faith, it declined to sanction her "at this time" under its inherent authority, but admonished her. It referred the matter to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, directing the clerk to send the opinion, both briefs, the attorneys' responses, and the argument recording "for such consideration as it sees fit," noting questions about Chalisa's account of her AI use and possible fee-splitting under Illinois Rules 1.5 and 1.2(e). The show-cause order stays open pending ARDC review; each lawyer must file a status report one year from the decision or within seven days of final ARDC action, whichever comes first, and "[a]t that point, we may consider whether additional sanctions are appropriate."

Why does Perez-Castillo v. Blanche matter for law firms using AI?

Perez-Castillo sorts responsibility between two lawyers with different roles. Salah signed the brief; Chalisa wrote it. The Court placed the sanction on the signature. Proceeding under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46, which reaches “conduct unbecoming a member of the bar,” it held that signing and submitting a brief he admitted he had not reviewed “display[s] egregious misjudgment” and is inimical to the administration of justice. “What is more,” Salah filed the revised brief without review after the Court had put him on notice of its deficiencies. “Attorneys practicing before this court should never sign and submit a brief they have not reviewed.”

The opinion also explains where this case sits in the circuit’s recent practice. It contrasts Jones v. Kankakee County Sheriff’s Department, where a pro se litigant with a few nonexistent quotations was not sanctioned, and Dec v. Mullin, where an attorney whose erroneous standard-of-review citations were “presumably copied and pasted” from another brief, and who apologized, was only admonished. This case was “categorically different” because the brief combined false quotations, erroneous law, and misstated facts, and because the signing attorney “did not take responsibility or apologize.” Chalisa, by contrast, apologized and committed to AI-focused CLE; the Court found no evidence that she committed fraud on the court and nothing in her response indicating bad faith, and admonished her without sanction “at this time,” while doubting that “such pervasive errors would arise through a grammar check.”

The referral is the most unusual feature. The Court directed the clerk to send the ARDC the opinion, both briefs, the attorneys’ responses, and the argument recording “for such consideration as it sees fit.” It said an ARDC review would help it know whether Chalisa’s response accurately reflects her AI use, noted concern that the Salah-Chalisa arrangement raised the possibility of an impermissible fee split without the client’s written consent, and said the ARDC “may conduct a more searching review of these questions.” It kept its own show-cause order open, directing status reports one year from decision or within seven days of final ARDC action, whichever comes first, after which “we may consider whether additional sanctions are appropriate.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that outsourcing brief-writing to another lawyer raises supervision, candor, and fee-sharing questions at once when AI is involved.