New York Court Sanctions Lawyer for Hallucinated Citations

In a foreclosure case a defense lawyer used hallucinated citations in a brief. Result: $5,000 sanction. The case, as the court notes, was routine.

“Where this appeal becomes unconventional, however, is that defendant’s opening brief cites six cases which do not exist. Plaintiff identified these fabricated cases as possibly being the product of artificial intelligence (hereinafter AI), and moved for an order seeking, among other things, sanctions against defendant and defense counsel. Defendant claimed the nonexistent cases were citation or formatting errors that he would correct in his reply brief, and then opposed the motion for sanctions with more fake cases and interpretations for existing cases that are at best strenuously attenuated, and at worst entirely inapposite. Defendant’s subsequent reply brief acknowledged that his “citation of fictitious cases is a serious error” and that they are “problematic,” but failed to offer any corrections or further explanation as previously stated. He then proceeded to include more fake cases and false legal propositions in two subsequent letters to this Court that requested judicial notice of a bankruptcy stay. In examining the propriety of defendant’s previously filed papers, more nonexistent cases were discovered in a motion that granted affirmative relief to defendant. Defense counsel reluctantly conceded during oral argument that he used AI in the preparation of his papers and, although he told the Court that he checked his papers, the filings themselves demonstrate otherwise. In total, defendant’s five filings during this appeal include no less than 23 fabricated cases, as well as many other blatant misrepresentations of fact or law from actual cases.

Although other state and federal courts have had the occasion to address the misuse of AI in legal papers, this Court has not yet had that opportunity. In doing so, we recognize that, as did the shift from digest books to online legal databases, generative artificial intelligence (hereinafter GenAI) represents a new paradigm for the legal profession, one which is not inherently improper, but rather has the potential to offer benefits to attorneys and the public — particularly in promoting access to justice, saving costs for clients and assisting courts with efficient and accurate administration of justice (see Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 FRD 489, 492-493 [D Wyo 2025]; Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F Supp 3d 443, 448 [SD NY 2023]).[4] At the same time, attorneys and litigants must be aware of the dangers that GenAI presents to the legal profession. At the forefront of that peril are AI “hallucinations,” which occur when an AI database generates incorrect or misleading sources of information due to a “variety of factors, including insufficient training data, incorrect assumptions made by the model, or biases in the data used to train the model” (What are AI Hallucinations?,https://cloud.google.com/discover/what-are-ai-hallucinations [last accessed Jan. 6, 2026]; see generally United States v. Google LLC, ___ F Supp 3d ___, ___, 2025 WL 2523010, *15, 2025 US Dist LEXIS 170459, *74 [D DC, Sept. 2, 2025, Nos. 20-cv-3010 (APM), 20-cv-3715 (APM)]).[5] Hallucinated cases may look like a real case because they include familiar-looking reporter information, but their citations lead to cases with different names, in different courts and on different topics — or even to no case at all (see Sanders v. United States, 176 Fed Cl 163, 168-169 [Fed Cl 2025]). Even where GenAI provides accurate case citations, it nonetheless may misrepresent the holdings of the cited cases — often in favor of the user supplying the query (see Green Bldg. Initiative, Inc. v. Peacock, 350 FRD 289, 292 [D Ore 2025]; Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 774 F Supp 3d 767, 770 [WD Va 2025]; see also Matter of Richburg, 671 BR 918, 924 n 11 [Bankr D SC 2025]).[6]

Courts throughout the country which have been confronted with AI-generated authorities have concluded that filing papers containing hallucinated cases and fabricated legal authorities may be sanctionable (see generally OTG New York, Inc. v. OTTOGI Am., Inc., 2025 WL 2671460, *2-3, 2025 US Dist LEXIS 183358, *7-8 [D NJ, Sept. 18, 2025, No. 24-cv-07209 (BRM) (JRA)]). This includes where the fake citations stand for accurate legal principles (see Ader v. Ader, 87 Misc 3d 1213[A], *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2025]; see also United States v. McGee, ___ F Supp 3d ___, ___, 2025 WL 2888065, at *7, 2025 US Dist LEXIS 201350, * 19; Johnson v. Dunn, 2025 WL 2086116, *16, US Dist LEXIS 141805, *45-46 [ND Ala, July 23, 2025, No. 2:21-cv-1701-AMM]), as there are many harms associated with the submission of fake cases that extend beyond merely wasting the time and money of the opposing party, but also in taking up the court’s resources to evaluate and resolve the deception (see Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F Supp 3d at 448).

In New York, courts have discretion to award costs or impose financial sanctions against an attorney or party for engaging in frivolous conduct (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a], [b]; WFE Ventures, Inc. v. GBD Lake Placid, LLC, 197 AD3d 824, 836 [3d Dept 2021]). “[C]onduct is frivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]). “In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider, among other issues the circumstances under which the conduct took place, including the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct, and whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the party” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]; see Matter of Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church of City of N.Y. v. 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 411, 414 [1990]). Moreover, rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that “[a] lawyer shall not knowingly . . . make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer” (Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 3.3[a][1]). Sanctions may be appropriate for frivolous and meritless appeals (see Bell v. State of New York, 96 NY2d 811, 812 [2001]), and are a common consequence for misuses of judicial process which unnecessarily divert “the time and attention of . . . [the] Judges of this State” (Matter of Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church of City of N.Y. v. 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d at 415; see generally Engel v. CBS, Inc., 93 NY2d 195, 207 [1999]; Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F Supp 3d at 448).

Here, defendant submitted at least 23 fabricated legal authorities across five filings during the pendency of this appeal.[7] He has also misrepresented the holdings of several real cases as being dispositive in his favor — when they were not.[8] It is axiomatic that submission of fabricated legal authorities is completely without merit in law and therefore constitutes frivolous conduct (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][1]). It cannot be said that fabricated legal authorities constitute “existing law” so as to provide a nonfrivolous ground for extending, modifying or reversing existing law (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][1]; see generally Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 FRD at 495; Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F Supp 3d at 461). Defense counsel acknowledged during oral argument that the papers were his own, and, nevertheless, “[b]y signing a paper, an attorney or party certifies that, to the best of that person’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein are not frivolous” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1a[b][1]). However, the excuse for fabricated legal authorities offered by defendant in his papers is incredible. Moreover, during oral argument defense counsel estimated that 90% of the citations he used were accurate, which, even if it were true, is simply unacceptable by any measure of candor to any court (see Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 3.3[a][1]). Where we are most troubled is that more than half of the fake cases offered by defendant came after he was on notice of such issue, whereby his reliance on fabricated legal authorities grew more prolific as this appeal proceeded — despite it being apparent to him that such conduct lacked a legal basis (see Ader v. Ader, 87 Misc 3d 1213[A], *1; see also 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]; Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 3.3[a][1]). Rather than taking remedial measures or expressing remorse, defense counsel essentially doubled down during oral argument on his reliance of fake legal authorities as not “germane” to the appeal.[9]

Turning to the appropriate sanction, courts must consider that sanctions are both retributive, in that they punish past conduct, but are also “goal oriented, in that they are useful in deterring future frivolous conduct not only by the particular parties, but also by the [b]ar at large” (Levy v. Carol Mgt. Corp., 260 AD2d 27, 34 [1st Dept 1999]). In doing so, courts around the country have imposed sanctions ranging from warnings to tens of thousands of dollars to attorneys who have submitted AI hallucinated legal authorities and false propositions (see e.g. Cojom v. Roblen, LLC, 2025 WL 3205930, *4, 2025 US Dist LEXIS 225325, *9-10 [D Conn, Nov. 17, 2025, No. 3:23-CV-1669 (JCH)] [involving three nonexistent cases; total sanction $500]; Hall v. Academy Charter Sch., 2025 WL 2256653, *5-6, 2025 US Dist LEXIS 152628, *14-16[ED NY, Aug. 7, 2025, No. 2:24-cv-08630-JMW] [involving three nonexistent cases; warning]; Lacey v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 2025 WL 1363069, *5, 2025 US Dist LEXIS 90370, *13 [CD Cal, May 5, 2025, No. CV 24-5205 FMO (MAAx)] [involving nine incorrect citations and two authorities that did not exist by attorneys in two law firms; total sanctions $31,100]). Such broad range reflects a constellation of factors surrounding the conduct of the attorney or party offering such fabricated legal authorities, including the number of fake cases or propositions, whether there were fake quotes, if the submitter continued to use or create more fabricated authorities across other filings in the same proceeding after being on notice of the misconduct, there was an admission of the error, there was remorse and the extent of the impact that the fabricated legal authorities had on the proceedings. Considering these factors, courts in cases involving comparable misconduct by defense counsel have imposed significant sanctions (see e.g. Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 114 Cal App 5th 426, 449, 336 Cal Rptr 3d 897, 912 [Cal Ct App 2025] [involving 21 fabricated case citations and quotations by attorney; total sanction $10,000]; Mid Cent. Operating Engrs. Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, 2025 WL 1511211, *2, 2025 US Dist LEXIS 100748, *3-4 [SD Ind, May 28, 2025, No. 2:24-cv-00326-JPH-MJD] [involving six nonexistent cases across multiple filings; total sanction $6,000]; Kruse v. Karlen, 692 SW3d 43, 50-54 [Mo Ct App 2024] [involving 22 fabricated case citations and multiple statutory misstatements by attorney; total sanction $10,000]).

Accordingly, recognizing this as the first appellate-level case in New York addressing sanctions for the misuse of GenAI, we find the imposition of a monetary sanction on defense counsel Joshua A. Douglass in the amount of $5,000 to be appropriate under the circumstances, with the further goal of deterring future frivolous conduct by defendant and the bar at large (see Levy v. Carol Mgt. Corp., 260 AD2d at 34). To be clear, attorneys and litigants are not prohibited from using GenAI to assist with the preparation of court submissions. The issue arises when attorneys and staff are not sufficiently trained on the dangers of such technology, and instead erroneously rely on it without human oversight. As with the work from a paralegal, intern or another attorney, the use of GenAI in no way abrogates an attorney’s or litigant’s obligation to fact check and cite check every document filed with a court. To do otherwise may be sanctionable, depending on the facts and particular circumstances of each case.”

Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 00040

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, Respondent,
v.
Jean LeTennier, Also Known as Jean Michel LeTennier and Jean M. LeTennier, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Pro Se Litigant Cautioned About Hallucinated Case Citations

Two days before Christmas, a district court in Nebraska cautioned a pro se litigant about using generative AI in his legal memoranda.

In the motion to reconsider, Leber raises the same arguments the Court rejected in his motion for partial final judgment. In “support” of his arguments, Leber repeatedly cites to a case which appears to be a hallucination of artificial intelligence, despite Leber’s certification that he has “reviewed and verified the accuracy of all content, citations, and legal authority referenced” in his filing (Filing No. 68-1).[1] The Court had previously warned Leber about this in its previous order. And Leber’s pro se status does not excuse him from “comply[ing] with court rules and directives.” See Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 2005). Leber is again instructed to verify the accuracy of all content, citations, and legal authority in his filings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b); NECivR 7.1(d)(5) (providing that “[a]ny brief not in compliance with this subsection may be stricken”— without further notice—”in the sole discretion of the court” and that a “material misrepresentation in the certificate of compliance” may also result in “sanctions against the person signing the document”).

The court denied the motion to reconsider. The citation is Leber v. Bryan Medical Center, D. Nebraska 2025, 8:25 cv 401.

ARDC Hearing Board Recommends Two-Year Suspension for Conversion of Client Funds

The Hearing Board has recommended a two-year suspension of an attorney who converted client funds to keep a an extra-marital relationship secret from his family. The lawyer must make restitution to affected clients as well. To his credit the lawyer admitted wrongdoing and apologized for his behavior. The respondent ran a successful real estate law practice before he got into trouble.

Respondent testified, “The root cause of this case is an extramarital relationship which turned extortionate, to the extent that I had to choose between satisfying the blackmailer or admitting to my family that I had cheated.” He felt “forced to make the Hobson’s choice of violating my professional ethics or breaking up my family to the detriment of all of us,” especially Respondent’s disabled adult son whom he and his wife cared for. (Tr. 16). Respondent presented several emails dated between October 2022 and November 2024, purporting to be from his paramour to him. (Resp. Exs. 1-6). He interpreted these emails as threats to reveal his infidelity if he did not continue to give her money. (Tr. 42, 46-57).

The respondent represented himself in the case and, given the circumstances, did an excellent job. He admitted wrongdoing and apologized for his actions. This is the correct way to handle a disciplinary case of this type and the respondent did a good job representing himself. In re Link, 24 PR 00058.

Tennessee Considering Amendments to Rule 5.4

The State of Tennessee is considering allowing non lawyers to own law firms. This is a big step in the slow but steady pursuit of law firm ownership by private equity companies. Rule 5.4(a) prohibits the sharing of fees with a non lawyer. Rule 5.4.(b) prohibits non lawyer ownership of law firms. The Tennessee Supreme Court issued an order seeking comment on the question. The order recites the usual phrases about access to justice. Generally, access to justice is a real issue, but many of those who cannot obtain counsel have cases that lawyers won’t accept because (a) there is no prospect for payment; or (b) the client wishes to pursue goals or objectives that are illegal or plainly wrong. It is highly doubtful that private equity firms will increase access to justice.

Non lawyer ownership of law firms means that the lawyer would share fees with non lawyers, a violation of Rule 5.4. That rule maintains the current status of the legal profession. Ownership by non lawyers inevitably means that ethical standards will slip and that lawyers will focus on the business people rather than their clients.

Arizona eliminated Rule 5.4 in 2021.

Another Chapter In the Saga of Generative AI

Despite the warnings and sanctions and news stories lawyers continue to use Generative AI to draft legal memoranda. Because AI models work in ways we don’t fully understand they sometimes make up citations to fake cases. One more such case dropped this week. Boston v. Williams, 1:23-cv-00752-WMR, N.D. Georgia, is one such case. The opening paragraph is as follows:

During its review of the Plaintiffs’ response brief [Doc. 57] in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court discovered that 17 of the 24 cases cited by Plaintiffs’ counsel either did not exist, did not support the proposition for which they were cited, or misquoted the authority. It appeared to the Court that at least some of the purported cases were artificial intelligence (“AI”) generated “hallucinations.” See United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1065 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (identifying “the markings of a hallucinated case created by generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools,” including case names that appear to be real but do not exist); Mavy v. Commissioner, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-25-00689-PHX-KML (ASB) 2025 WL 2355222, at * 1 (D. Arizona, Aug. 14, 2025).

When the court made inquiries of counsel, counsel apologized and said she was very busy and had her daughter draft the brief. The court found probable cause for a violation of Rule 11(b) and set a hearing for the court to determine if the rule was, in fact, violated.

Given the number of these cases, the public embarrassment the lawyers have faced, and the sanctions that will inevitably ensue, I am of the opinion that nothing will stop lazy lawyers from using AI to draft briefs.

Ed Clinton, Jr.

Colorado Discipline Case Is An Important Reminder About Reviews

In the age of the internet, lawyers are subject to online reviews by clients and former clients. I have received several reviews myself that I did not enjoy reading. Some of them were by people who I never represented or spoke with. Where lawyers get into trouble is when they respond to an online review with some commentary. A recent Colorado discipline case of Bernadette Teresa Gonzales, 24 PDJ 094, August 29, 2025 is a reminder of the ethical issues that can arise when you respond to a review in an unwise manner. The Opinion states:

Finally, in 2020, a former client posted a negative and disparaging review of Gonzales on her firm’s Facebook page. Gonzales posted a public reply in which she assailed the client as a terrible mother, described the client’s child as “worthless” and “entitled,” and implied that the client and her family were not truthful and lacked integrity. Through this conduct, Gonzales violated Colo. RPC 1.6(a) (a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent) and Colo. RPC 1.9(c) (a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client).

This is important to understand that you should (a) never respond to a review in an angry manner or in an angry frame of mind. Simply respond that you respectfully disagree with the review and leave it at that. If you have a question about how to respond, better to call a lawyer who can give impartial legal advice.

Ed Clinton, Jr.

The L

The Legal Profession Blog Has Shut Down – Permanently.

Recently, the legal profession blog, hosted by typepad, shut down. This is a huge loss to all of us in the profession who relied upon it for the last twenty years to notify us of important professional responsibility decisions in the U.S. and Canada. My thanks to Professor Fritsch who worked on this blog for 25+ years and made us all better lawyers and students of the profession.

ARDC Hearing Board Recommends One-Year Suspension for Frivolous Litigation And False Attacks on Integrity of Judge

The ARDC Hearing Board recommended a one-year suspension for an attorney who engaged in frivolous litigation and assisted a client in committing bankruptcy fraud. In re Xydakis, 2021PR00104. The order is 81 pages long. I have done my best to summarize the key findings of the order and most important rule violations.

One of the charges asserted that the Respondent engaged in frivolous litigation on behalf of a client, Marshall Spiegel, who was the Secretary of the Board of a condominium association. “Count I charged Respondent with (1) bringing or defending a proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issue therein, with no basis for doing so that is not frivolous; (2) making statements of material fact or law to atribunal which the lawyer knows are false; (3) using means in representing a client that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person; (4) engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and (5) making statements with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity concerning the integrity of a judge, in violation of Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1, 3.3(a)(1), 4.4(a), 8.4(d), and 8.2(a), respectively, arising from his bringing and maintaining lawsuits on behalf of his client against a condominium association board and other individuals and entities.”

The Hearing Board summarized the litigation as follows:

In the fall of 2015, the president of the board of directors of the 1618 Sheridan Road Condominium Association (“Association”) resigned. At that time, Marshall Spiegel was serving as secretary of theAssociation’s board and Valerie Hall was serving as treasurer. Following the president’s resignation, Spiegel declared himself acting president, over Hall’s objections. (Ans. at par. 2.)

On October 22, 2015, Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Spiegel, the Association, and Chicago Title Trust Co., seeking to remove Hall from the Association’s board of directors. The complaint alleged that,because Hall’s condominium unit was owned by a trust rather than by Hall herself, she was not considered a unitowner and therefore could not be a board member. The lawsuit, filed in the Chancery Division of Cook County Circuit Court, was docketed as case number 15 CH 15594. (Ans. at par. 4; Adm. Ex. 1.)

On October 26, 2015, Respondent filed a second lawsuit on behalf of the same plaintiffs for defamation,invasion of privacy, and breach of contract against Hall. The second lawsuit, filed in the Law Division of CookCounty Circuit Court, was docketed as case number 15 L 10817, and, like the first, sought to remove Hall from the Association’s board. It also added a new defendant and additional counts, including allegations that Hall wrongfully accused Spiegel of stealing her suitcases and filed a false police report in which she accused Spiegel of taking lawn furniture. (Ans. at par. 6; Adm. Ex. 3.)

On October 30, 2015, Respondent filed a first amended complaint in case number 15 L 10817, adding two new defendants and additional counts. (Ans. at par. 7; Adm. Ex. 4.) On November 2, 2015, Hall filed an answer to the first amended complaint, and attached the deed to her condominium unit. She also filed acounterclaim in which she sought a declaration that, among other things, she was a unit owner and therefore qualified to sit on the Association board; that all of the board’s actions following the former president’s resignation were proper; and that Respondent was not the Association’s authorized legal counsel and therefore had no authority to act on behalf of the Association. (Ans. at par. 8; Resp. Ex. 57.) Also on November 2, 2015, Respondent voluntarily dismissed case number 15 CH 15594. (Ans. at par. 5.)

On November 24, 2015, Respondent filed a second amended complaint in case number 15 L 10817, removing the Association as a plaintiff and adding an additional defendant and new counts, including allegations that one of the defendant unit owners spied on Spiegel and moved large water cooler bottles in front of Spiegel’s door. (Adm. Ex. 7.) On December 2, 2015, Respondent filed a counter and third-party complaint onbehalf of the plaintiffs in case number 15 L 10817 against Hall, her counsel, and the Association’s counsel,alleging that they interfered with Spiegel’s business expectancy with Respondent by filing a counterclaim that caused Spiegel’s insurance carrier to refuse to hire Respondent to defend Spiegel, which caused Spiegel to have to expend his own funds. The next day, Respondent filed a third amended complaint against the same five defendants named in the second amended complaint but adding additional counts, including allegations that one of the defendants installed horizontal blinds without prior board approval. (Ans. at par. 9; Adm. Exs. 8, 9.)

On December 31, 2015, the Association filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive Relief against Spiegel in the Chancery Division of Cook County Circuit Court, docketed as case number 15 CH 18825. (Ans.at par. 11.) On January 11, 2016, the Association moved the court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) torestrain Spiegel from continuing to prevent the board from functioning. The court granted the Association’s TRO. (Ans. at pars. 11-13; Adm. Ex. 10.)

On February 8, 2016, Respondent filed a fourth amended complaint in case number 15 L 10817, which alleged 25 counts against 10 defendants, including Hall’s counsel and the Association’s counsel. As to theattorney-defendants, the fourth amended complaint contained the same allegations regarding interference with business expectancy that were raised in the earlier- filed counter and third-party complaint. (Ans. at pars. 15, 16; Adm. Ex. 17.)

On April 8, 2016, Respondent filed an additional lawsuit in the Law Division of Cook County CircuitCourt, which was docketed as case number 16 L 3564. (Ans. at par. 17.) In that lawsuit, Respondent brought claims on behalf of Spiegel against his neighbors, Corrine and William McClintic, alleging that the McClintics were seeking to rent their unit in the 1618 Sheridan Road building when they were not permitted to do so under the condominium declarations, and that, as a result, Spiegel suffered at least $50,000 in damages. Respondent later filed a first amended complaint in that matter, adding additional defendants and counts. (Ans. at par. 18; Adm. Exs. 18, 19.)

On May 27, 2016, the Association, the Association board, and other residents who were parties to the Spiegel litigation moved to consolidate the three active Cook County cases. On September 28, 2016, the trialcourt consolidated cases 15 CH 18825 and 16 L 3564 into case 15 L 10817. (Ans. at par. 19.)

On June 14, 2017, Judge Moira Johnson granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss all 25 counts of thefourth amended complaint in the 15 L 10817 case on the basis that none of the claims stated a cause of action, andordered Respondent to seek leave of the court to replead any amended complaint. Judge Johnson also struck all33 counts of the first amended complaint in case number 16 L 3564. (Ans. at par. 20; Adm. Ex. 22 at 70-79; Adm. Ex. 23.).”

Eventually the case was transferred to Judge Brennan who awarded sanctions exceeding $1.0 million against Respondent and his client. Sadly the conduct did not cease. “Following entry of the orders imposing sanctions on Spiegel and Respondent, a number of news outlets and online publications ran stories about the sanctions awards. In April 2020, Respondent filed nine separate complaints on behalf of The Law Offices of John Xydakis, P.C. and himself, individually, against various publications, alleging that their reporting about the sanctions award against him was defamatory. One of thecomplaints was against the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s article quoted attorneys John Schriver and Eugene Murphy, whom Respondent also named as defendants in that lawsuit. In May 2021, the court granted a motion to dismiss filed by Schriver and his law firm, and the case was dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The remaining eight cases were either dismissed for want of prosecution or voluntarily dismissed by Respondent. (Ans. at pars. 43-53; Adm. Exs. 59-60, 62, 64, 66-70, 72-73, 75.)”

The Respondent also accused Judge Brennan of engaging in ex parte communications. These allegations were found to be false. “The record is devoid of any evidence whatsoever that Judge Brennan engaged in ex parte communications. Even Respondent’s own testimony shows that, at most, he became suspicious that JudgeBrennan may have communicated with another attorney when, at a hearing in February 2018, she told him that he had not listened to Judge Johnson or anyone else, and then, in another hearing in March 2018, first said thatshe had not spoken with counsel at all and then said that she had not spoken with counsel about the case. (See Tr. 1092, 1094-95.)

But mere suspicion is an insufficient basis for an attack on the integrity of a judge. “A reasonable beliefmust be based on objective facts. Thus, subjective belief, suspicion, speculation, or conjecture does notconstitute a reasonable belief.” In re Walker, 2014PR00132, M.R. 28453 (March 20, 2017) (Hearing Bd. at 21); see also Greanias, 01 SH 117 (Hearing Bd. at 43, 57) (attorney had “no factual or evidentiary basis” for her allegations, which were “no more than conjecture and personal belief;” she therefore made the allegations with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity). Moreover, itis clear from even a cursory reading of the transcript of the February 2018 hearing that Judge Brennan was referring to Respondent’s failure to abide by previous judges’ rulings when she said he did not listen to Judge Johnson or anyone else.

In addition, at the March 2018 hearing, and in stipulated testimony in this matter, Judge Brennan unequivocally denied that she had engaged in ex parte communications with any of the defense counsel. Similarly, Gene Murphy, the defense counsel with whom Respondent claims Judge Brennan communicated, denied having any ex parte communications with Judge Brennan or any of her staff. He explained that he may have had brief conversations with the judge’s clerk about administrative matters, but never talked about the substance of the case with the judge or any of her staff. He further testified that he would never do such a thing.We found Murphy to be credible and accept his testimony that he never engaged in ex parte communications with Judge Brennan or any of her staff.

The documentary evidence presented by Respondent does not alter our finding. At most, it shows that there were a few short phone calls between Murphy and Judge Brennan’s chambers, and that Murphy notedconversations with “judge’s clerk” on his billing statements. That evidence is consistent with Murphy’s testimony that he occasionally contacted Judge Brennan’s chambers about administrative matters, such as when a motion would be heard.

Because there is no objective evidence in the record that Judge Brennan engaged in ex parte communications, we find that Respondent had no reasonable basis for believing his statements to be true. He therefore recklessly disregarded the truth in making his false accusation, and in so doing, violated Rule 8.2(a).”

The Hearing Board found violations of Rule 3.1. “We find that the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that, as of November 2015 if not earlier, Respondent knew that his attack on Hall’s unit ownership and eligibility to serve on the Association board was legally and factually baseless; yet, he maintained those claims against Hall until Judge Brennan denied him leave to file the fifth amended complaint in February 2018. By this conduct, he violated Rule 3.3(a)(1).”

The Board also found a violation of Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Based upon our findings that Respondent violated Rule 3.1, and based upon the totality of thecircumstances relating to Respondent’s filings and tactics in the Spiegel litigation, we also find that he engaged inconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by wasting the time, money, and other resources of opposingparties, opposing counsel, and the judicial system by bringing and pursuing baseless and frivolous claims. It is apparent from the court documents and transcripts in the record that Respondent’s excessive and oppressive litigation tactics, particularly his filing of the motion seeking leave to file the fifth amended complaint, required the parties and court to expend resources to address his motion and various filings. Among other things, the defendants were required to prepare written responses to and attend another lengthy hearing on the motion for leaveto file the fifth amended complaint, and the court was required to hold a hearing and handle a subsequent motionfor reconsideration. We therefore find that the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(d).

Comment: the Respondent was and is clearly a talented lawyer. Somehow, in my opinion, he lost sight of his role as an advocate and became so committed to winning the case at any cost that he lost sight of the rules. How is it that someone with extensive courtroom experience loses sight of the rules and embarks on a campaign of frivolous litigation and abuse of the judiciary? There must have been multiple clues delivered to him that his behavior was not appropriate, yet he persisted.

Update on Law Firms v. Trump

As I have previously reported, Jenner & Block won a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Executive Order targeting Jenner & Block. On July 21, 2025, the United States appealed that injunction as well as the grant of summary judgment in favor of Jenner & Block. No briefs on appeal have been filed. These are very important cases. I did not expect Jenner & Block to back down and they did not.

Here is a link to the court listener site with the pleadings. https://clearinghouse.net/case/46298/