In his report and recommendation issued Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore recommended solo practitioner Rafael Ramirez of Rio Hondo, Texas, face the sanctions for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which states attorneys must certify to the best of their knowledge that their filings' "claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument."
The recommendation came after Ramirez filed a notice in which he acknowledged he relied on generative artificial intelligence to draft briefs, admitted he did not verify the cases the AI cited and apologized to the court. The lawyer later reported he has participated in continuing legal education courses on the subject, but Judge Dinsmore said he felt sanctions were in order.
Given the ease with which modern lawyers may verify citations, including via the LexisNexis Shepardizing tool or Westlaw's KeyCite, Judge Dinsmore said in his recommendation, there is "simply no reason for an attorney to fail to fulfill this obligation." Law360 is owned by LexisNexis Legal & Professional, a RELX Group company.
Ramirez is representing excavation company HoosierVac LLC against a complaint accusing the company of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by blocking the Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund from auditing its books and payroll. The fund alleges violations of a collective bargaining agreement, trust agreement and participation agreement.
The fund filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in June. HoosierVac petitioned to transfer pending National Labor Relations Board cases to the federal district court, and in October, Judge Dinsmore denied the petition.
In a brief accompanying a motion for reconsideration, Ramirez, on behalf of HoosierVac, argued that Seventh Circuit precedent allowed for such a transfer. However, Ramirez's argument partially hinged on case law that did not exist: In re Cook County Treasurer.
Not recognizing the citation, Judge Dinsmore ordered Ramirez to file a notice correcting the citation.
In his notice, Ramirez said he, too, could not find the citation. He wrote that HoosierVac acknowledged "that the referenced citation was in error," withdrew the previously cited authority and apologized "to the court and opposing counsel for the confusion."
Days later, Judge Dinsmore issued a scathing show cause order threatening Ramirez with sanctions.
"Transposing numbers in a citation, getting the date wrong, or misspelling a party's name is an error. Citing to a case that simply does not exist is something else altogether," Judge Dinsmore stated in the order.
"Mr. Ramirez offers no hint of an explanation for how a case citation made up out of whole cloth ended up in his brief," the order went on. "The most obvious explanation is that Mr. Ramirez used an AI-generative tool to aid in drafting his brief and failed to check the citations therein before filing it."
Judge Dinsmore also completed what he later called a "nonexhaustive review" of the attorney's other filings, finding two other faulty citations in other briefs.
At a subsequent hearing, Ramirez admitted to using an AI tool, according to Judge Dinsmore. The lawyer reportedly told the court he was not aware that using generative artificial intelligence could result in nonexistent citations, which are sometimes known as "hallucinations."
"These 'hallucination cites,' Mr. Ramirez asserted, included text excerpts which appeared to be credible," the judge said in his recommendation. "As such, Mr. Ramirez did not conduct any further research, nor did he make any attempt to verify the existence of the generated citations."
Since the advent of generative AI, lawyers found to have cited nonexistent precedent have been ordered to pay sanctions between $2,000 and $5,000, Judge Dinsmore stated. Given this, the judge recommended a $15,000 sanction for the three faulty briefs. According to the judge, Ramirez's professed ignorance about the potential pitfalls of AI indicated lesser sanctions were not enough.
In addition to recommending sanctions, Judge Dinsmore referred the matter to the chief judge for consideration of additional discipline and ordered the attorney to provide a copy of the order to HoosierVac's CEO.
Licensed and based in Texas, Ramirez is also licensed to practice in Indiana and has been a member of that state's bar since 1995. According to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys, Ramirez was publicly reprimanded in 2006, but details of that case were not available.
When contacted by Law360, Ramirez said his comment would come in his response to the court. Counsel for the Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
The Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund is represented by Daniel P. Bowman of Bowman Legal Services LLC.
HoosierVac LLC is represented by Rafael Ramirez of Ramirez Law Office PC, and Raymond J. Biederman of Mattingly Burke Cohen & Biederman LLP.
The case is Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, case number 2:24-cv-00326, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
--Editing by Robert Rudinger.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
