San Antonio Independent School District v. Becerra

What did the court warn about?

The court imposed no sanction. It noted that it had "previously warned litigants that generative artificial intelligence tools 'lack the ability to produce reliable and accurate citations to legal authorities,'" repeated that admonition, and reminded "licensed attorneys, including Becerra's counsel in this appeal," of their duties of candor and competence under Texas Disciplinary Rules 1.01 and 3.03(a)(1), stating that "[r]eliance on fictitious citations and inaccurate representations about the contents of an opposing party's brief are inconsistent with both of these duties." The court "considered whether to strike Becerra's brief" under Tex. R. App. P. 38.9 but proceeded to the merits "without taking further action on this issue," while cautioning "Becerra's counsel that we will not tolerate similar issues in any future appearances before this court." On the merits, the court held that an ultra vires claim does not lie against the district itself, that a DAEP referral is not reviewable by a court, and that Becerra did not plead a viable due process claim. It reversed the order denying the plea to the jurisdiction and rendered judgment dismissing Becerra's lawsuit against SAISD.

Why does San Antonio Independent School District v. Becerra matter for law firms using AI?

The Fourth Court of Appeals addressed the citation problem before reaching the merits, under its own heading, “Becerra’s Cited Authority.” The opinion states that four of the eight judicial opinions in the appellee’s brief “appear to be hallucinations created by generative artificial intelligence” and walks through each: a purported Houston Fourteenth Court case whose reporter cite leads to a Missouri decision, two cause numbers that belonged to criminal cases, and a real Fifth Circuit employment case described as a decision about a college student’s expressive conduct. The court found that one of the nonexistent cases was relied on “as a core part of her argument to this court” with no other supporting authority.

The court also addressed counsel’s explanation. Becerra contended that she cited three of the cases “to refute SAISD’s own reliance on those citations,” but the court found that “SAISD did not cite any of these fictitious opinions in either its appellate briefing or its trial court filings,” and concluded that “[i]t is therefore unclear why Becerra decided to include these hallucinations in her brief.” It then tied the conduct to the Texas Disciplinary Rules: “[r]eliance on fictitious citations and inaccurate representations about the contents of an opposing party’s brief are inconsistent with both” the duty of candor and the duty of competence.

The consequence in this appeal was a caution rather than a sanction. The court considered striking the brief under Tex. R. App. P. 38.9 and proceeding as if no appellee’s brief had been filed, then decided to reach the merits “without taking further action on this issue,” while cautioning counsel “that we will not tolerate similar issues in any future appearances before this court.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the court cited its own earlier AI warnings in Suday v. Suday and AGiza v. Franklin and said, “We once again repeat that admonition.”