Update August 9, 2026, to add sanctions.
Recently, a colleague shared this bench slap of three lawyers in New York with me. One lawyer used fabricated citations. The others either didn’t notice or failed to report them. I edited down the much longer video to show just the bench slap, which is still quite long: about 22 minutes. There is now an order to show cause related to the fabrications. The order requires all parties to respond. The case is Landberg v. City of New York, 2025-02380.
In one matter I was involved with, long before generative AI, opposing counsel misstated the holdings in all six opinions he cited. He completely altered the meaning, so the opinions helped his client and hurt mine. While researching the issue for the supervising attorney, I read the cases and found that in reality, the cited cases helped my client. As I recall, I didn’t even bother writing a brief, the law was that clear. I simply went to my boss, explained that the cases had been misstated, revealed the true holdings and what I had found, and that was that. The case ended in our client’s favor quickly after that conversation. That particular matter was at the trial level. Imagine how much it would have cost our client if I hadn’t checked those opinions. The lesson stuck with me.
As a result of my own experience, it amazes me when attorneys don’t read the opposing side’s cases to make sure they are correctly used. It amazes me even more when appellate lawyers fail to read the cases. I just don’t understand it. I get not reading a case that stands for something obvious, like the standard for summary judgment when it is not in dispute. But the rest?
As you can see from the video, it seems some judges agree with me. In the video, the court is clearly upset with not only the lawyer who used the fabricated citations, but the other two lawyers who failed to bring them to the court’s attention.
Please don’t let this be you. Check that the citations exist, and check that the cases stand for the proposition for which they were cited. Otherwise, you could end up embarrassed in front of the bar. Or worse, sanctioned, or even sued for malpractice if your failure to read the opinions harms your client’s case.
Sanctions
The judges handed down sanctions in this case. $8,000 for the lawyer and $2,500 for the firm. The full document may be found on the court’s website. In the order, the court reviewed the specific problems in the brief in question. Sanders, the sanctioned attorney, wrote in response to the Order to Show Cause, “that he was ‘confused and stunned at the questioning.'” He also wrote that he was “‘deeply embarrassed'” and that he would be much more careful in the future. In its opinion, the court noted the failure of Sanders to take the time offered to review his cases, and that “he was not being candid at the time of oral argument.” The court found that this “demonstrated his professional immaturity, arrogance, and profound lack of respect for the judicial system.” Further, the court noted that when he was provided the opportunity to respond in writing, he “was still not completely candid.” This, no doubt, is what lead to the substantial sanction for Sanders.
The attorneys for the owner and the City where not sanctioned, but the court does refer to them, noting, “Although the attorneys for the owner and the City, who are officers of the court, submitted respondents’ briefs, neither of them alerted this Court about the fabricated citations, fabricated quotations, misstatements of law, and misrepresentations regarding the holdings of real cases contained in the plaintiff’s brief.”