Fourth Circuit Technology Agnostic Hallucination Decision Results in Admonishment

“Bulldog Attorneys” v. “Bulldog Law” – Sanctions Granted in Part; Denied Without Prejudice in Part

March 12, 2026

A Court’s Standing Order on A.I.

March 14, 2026

Published by Michael Berman at March 13, 2026

Tags

Hallucination decisions are “old news.” Hallucinations Are “Old News,” But a Recent Maryland Decision Addresses Ethical Contours (Jan. 17, 2026).

Courts and litigants alike have erred. Litigant Forfeited Claim that Court Erred by Relying on Hallucinated/Fictional Cases (Mar. 11, 2026).

The primary reason to discuss In re: Nwaubani, 2026 WL 687194 (4^th Cir. Mar. 11, 2026)(unpublished)(per curiam) is because I practice in this Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit applied a technology-agnostic analysis.

Nwaubani is an attorney discipline matter that stemmed from briefing in a separate employment appeal. In that appeal, the Court was “[c]oncerned that Nwaubani’s briefing contained citations to nonexistent judicial opinions potentially derived from generative artificial intelligence (AI)….” As a result, the Court’s Standing Panel on Attorney Discipline initiated proceedings. Those proceedings resulted in public admonishment.

We begin with how Nwaubani’s conduct came to the attention of the court. During his representation of the plaintiff on appeal in Bolden, the Bolden panel discovered that a case cited in Nwaubani’s brief, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jackson, 548 U.S. 629 (2006), did not exist. So, it issued an order directing Nwaubani to file a revised brief and show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned. His response to the initial notice denied using generative AI in preparing his briefs and instead stated that he mistakenly cited Jackson when he meant to cite a different case, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992). He also provided a tenuous explanation for why Darden, a case concerning the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, was relevant to his appeal. That said, when Nwaubani filed his revised opening brief, he omitted his earlier argument and did not cite Darden at all.

Id. at *1. The Court continued: “Unfortunately, Nwaubani’s reply brief contained other errors, including citations to two more nonexistent cases….” Id. at *2.

“When asked at the Bolden oral argument about his sources for the three nonexistent cases, Nwaubani responded that he used LexisNexis, Westlaw and Google.” Id. at *2. The Disciplinary Panel’s initial inquiry and the preliminary responses are described in the decision. Id. at *2. Formal briefing was ordered and a prosecuting counsel appointed. Id. at *3.

The Court’s Local Rule 46(g) authorizes discipline for violations of the rules of professional conduct in the attorney’s State. Id. at *3. As such, the Court applied the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. D.C. Rule 8.4(d) prohibits conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice. However, the Court wrote:

But before we apply that test, we first address the potential use of generative AI in Bolden. Courts across the country are grappling with how to address the use of generative AI in materials submitted to the court—and nonexistent cases (otherwise known as hallucinations) are the frequent posterchild for problems. See, e.g., Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 25-20086, 2026 WL 456842 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026); Holmes v. The Univ. of Texas at Austin, No. 1:24-CV-1135, 2026 WL 297630 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2026); Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc., No. 22-2324, 2026 WL 265581 (D. Kan. Feb. 2, 2026); Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSpot.com Inc., No. 25-5135, 2026 WL 195644 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 26, 2026); Hall v. Acad. Charter Sch., No. 2:24-cv-08630, 2025 WL 2256653 (E.D.N.Y Aug. 7, 2025); Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024); Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). One thing is clear—it is difficult to overlook the increasing prevalence of generative AI. Even traditional legal research services like LexisNexis and Westlaw now offer generative AI features as part of their software. The result—while the use of generative AI is currently perceived by some in the legal field as an exception, it may soon become the norm.

Id. at *3.

However, the Court applied a technology-agnostic analysis:

But today we need not delve too deeply into generative AI. In fact, we don’t even need to determine whether Nwaubani did or did not use that technology. That’s because Rule 8.4(d)’s prohibition of “conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice” applies to submitting a brief with nonexistent cases no matter how it is done, whether through generative AI or not. See Attorneys’ Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters, D.C. Bar, Ethics Opinion 388 (April 2024); Fletcher, 2026 WL 456842, at *5 (“Modern generative AI may be a new technology, but the same sanctions rules apply, and the rules we have are well equipped to handle these types of cases.”); Mata, 678 F. Supp. 3d at 448 (“[E]xisting rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings.” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11)).

Id. at *4 (emphasis added).

The Court made it clear that a mistake does not automatically rise to the level of an ethical violation: “Of course, making a mistaken citation in a brief does not automatically rise to the level of a Rule 8.4(d) violation.” Id. at *4.

Here, however, three nonexistent cases were cited: “And while Nwaubani attempts simply to replace the nonexistent cases with existing cases with correct citations, the legal relevance of those existing cases to his arguments in Bolden is tenuous at best. A reasonable attorney, in preparing or reviewing his brief, should have discovered the errors.” Id. at *4.

As a result, the Court found a violation of the D.C. Rules and its Local Rule 46(g)(1)(c). It determined that admonishment was the appropriate sanction.

In note 6, the Court added: “Like most, if not all, state bars, the District of Columbia Bar imposes additional obligations. See e.g., D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 1.1 (competence), D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions), D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 3.3 (candor to tribunal).”

In note 2, the Court wrote: “This opinion contains citations to three nonexistent cases: Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jackson, 548 U.S. 629 (2006), Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Glencore Ltd., 611 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and In re Acres Properties, Inc., 100 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. 1996). While we reference them throughout this opinion by name, they are not actual cases.”

A.I. continues to present numerous interesting issues: