Federal judge imposes what may be the most expensive sanction for hallucinations yet

 Last month I reported on a case that was reported as imposing significant sanctions for citing hallucinated cases and stated that the running count of cases involving courts complaining about hallucinated cases created by AI was 768.  Today the count is 901.  Go here for the full list.

I have not read every case on the list nor have I followed it closely, but if the case I reported in March was really significant because the court imposed $15,000 in sanctions to the lawyers involved, you should know that a federal judge has raised the stakes considerably.

Today, the ABA Journal is reporting on a case in which the judge imposed $110,000 in fines and attorney fees against two lawyers who filed documents filled with fake cases and fabricated citations.

That may be the larges sanctions imposed for improper use of AI yet.  

The ABA Journal has the story here.

John Eastman disbarred in California for role in Trump's attempt to subvert the 2020 election

 Last week, after a three-year disciplinary process, the California Supreme Court finally officially disbarred John Eastman for his role in the attempt to help Donald Trump subvert the 2020 election.  

Eastman was also suspended in Washington, D.C. pending the decision of the case, so it is likely that he will be disbarred reciprocally there soon.

Politico has more on the story here and Above the Law has a good comment here.

UPDATE 4-18-26:  The ABA Journal reports "California Supreme Court disbars attorney John Eastman for 'egregious and deceitful conduct'"

ABA releases new Formal Ethics Opinion on a lawyer's obligation to disclose information about a judge's disqualification

The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 522 - Lawyer’s Obligation to Disclose Information About Grounds for a Judge’s Disqualification. Its abstract reads as follows: 

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. When a lawyer in a proceeding possesses information that the lawyer knows is reasonably likely to give rise to a judicial disqualification obligation, Rule 8.4(d) requires the lawyer, as an officer of the court, to disclose that information to the tribunal. When the lawyer possesses the information only because it is “information relating to the representation of a client,” then the lawyer’s disclosure obligation is subject to the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality under Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6.

For now (before it is archived), you can read the opinion here.