The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.
Docket entry 121, 28 May 2025 · source · PDF · 4 pages
Docket text. ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Court ADOPTS in part Magistrate Judge Dinsmore's report and recommendation. Dkt. 99 . Mr. Ramirez is personally sanctioned $6,000 and shall pay that amount to the Clerk of the Court by July 10, 2025. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 5/28/2025.(KAA)
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION MID CENTRAL OPERATING ENGINEERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, ) ) STEPHEN SCOTT, Trustee ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 2:24-cv-00326-JPH-MJD ) HOOSIERVAC LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore has recommended that Defendant's counsel, Rafael Ramirez, be personally sanctioned $15,000 "for submitting to the Court and opposing counsel, on three separate occasions, briefs that contained citations to non-existent cases." Dkt. 99; dkt.
Mr. Ramirez admits that he relied "on generative artificial intelligence tools that produced fictitious case citations." Dkt. 102 at 1.
The Court also considers the collateral consequences that Mr. Ramirez has experienced, and may continue to experience, from having improperly relied on non-existent AI- generated legal citations. Id. at 1 (Mr.
Docket entry 103, 6 March 2025 · source · PDF · 3 pages
Docket text. ORDER OF REFERENCE TO THE INDIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION - The Court REFERS this matter to the Indiana Attorney Disciplinary Commission for investigation and prosecution pursuant to Local Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 2(a)(1). The clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order, and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations Concerning Sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (Dkt. 99 in Case No. 2:24-cv-00326-JPH-MJD) to the Indiana Attorney Disciplinary Commission. The clerk is directed to file a copy of this Order in Case No. 2:24-cv-00326- JPH-MJD. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/6/2025. Copies distributed pursuant to distribution list. (JSR) (Entered: 03/10/2025)
This was the result of Mr. Ramirez's reliance on programs utilizing generative artificial intelligence and his failure to review the work product of those programs to ensure that it was accurate and did not contain fictitious citations. Therefore, the Court REFERS this matter to the Indiana Attorney Disciplinary Commission for investigation and prosecution pursuant to Local Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 2(a)(1).
Docket entry 99, 21 February 2025 · source · PDF · 9 pages
Docket text. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Undersigned, in his discretion, hereby RECOMMENDS that Mr. Ramirez be personally SANCTIONED in the amount of $15,000 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for submitting to the Court and opposing counsel, on three separate occasions, briefs that contained citations to non-existent cases. In addition, the Undersigned REFERS the matter of Mr. Ramirez's misconduct in this case to the Chief Judge pursuant to Local Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 2(a) for consideration of any further discipline that may be appropriate. Mr. Ramirez is ORDERED to provide a copy of this order to the chief executive officer of his client, HoosierVac LLC, and to file a certification that he has done so within seven days of the date of this order. (See Order.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/21/25.(RSF) (Entered: 02/21/2025)
Ramirez filed a Notice in which he stated that he was unable to locate the case, "acknowledge[d] that the referenced citation was in error," "withdr[ew] the previously cited authority[,] and apologize[d] to the Court and opposing counsel for the confusion." [ Dkt. 86 at 1.] On December 23, 2024, the Undersigned explained that "filing a brief with a non-existent citation falls far short of an attorney's duty to the Court, his client, and opposing counsel." [Dkt. 87.] Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3), the Undersigned ordered Mr.
Mr. Ramirez explained that he had used AI before to assist with legal matters, such as drafting agreements, and did not know that AI was capable of generating fictitious cases and citations. These "hallucination cites," Mr.
Mr. Ramirez reported that he has since taken continuing legal education courses on the topic of AI use and continues to use AI products which he has been assured will not produce "hallucination cites." Mr. Ramirez agreed during the hearing that he did not fully comply with Rule 11, but he emphasized that at no point did he act in bad faith or proceed with malice.
Ramirez did not make the requisite reasonable inquiry into the law. Had he expended even minimal effort to do so, he would have discovered that the AI- generated cases do not exist. That the AI-generated excerpts appeared valid to Mr.
Sept. 26, 2024) (issuing a $2,500 penalty to attorney who failed to disclose the use of artificial intelligence and included a citation to a nonexistent case); Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F.
3d 443 (S.D.N.Y . 2023) (sanctioning attorneys for $5,000 when they used AI to generate an excerpt of an opinion which did not exist). In imposing sanctions, a court must keep in mind the basic principle that "[i]n choosing a sanction . . . 'the least severe sanction [that is] adequate to serve the purpose should be imposed.'" Brown, 830 F.2d at 1437 (quoting Cabell v.
While this amount is at the higher end of the sanctions that have previously been imposed for similar conduct, Mr. Ramirez's professed ignorance of the propensity of the AI tools he was using to "hallucinate" citations is evidence that those lesser sanctions have been insufficient to deter the conduct. Whether a case cite is obtained from a law review article, a hornbook, or through independent legal research, the duty to ensure that any case cited to a court is "good law" is nearly as old as the practice of law.
This Rule mirrors the requirements of Rule 11(b)(2), and likewise proscribes presenting unfounded legal bases. There is no merit in relying on non-existent cases, so Mr. Ramirez's conduct clearly disregards this Rule.