Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Defense Attorney Sanctioned for Citing Fabricated Case Law
San Diego Lawyer Ordered to Pay $1,500 for Referencing ‘AI Hallucinations’ of Legal Authority in Briefs
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has sanctioned a San Diego-area criminal defense/personal injury attorney $1,500 for including a fake quotation from a real case as well as a citation to a fabricated decision in an opposition brief, finding that the conduct was especially egregious because of the criminal context of the proceedings.
Thursday’s order, signed by Presiding Justice Judith McConnell, imposes the monetary penalty on LeRoy George Siddell, who has been a California lawyer since 1971. It declares:
“When criminal defense attorneys fail to comply with their ethical obligations, their conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system. It also damages their credibility and potentially impugns the validity of the arguments they make on behalf of their clients, calling into question their competency and ability to ensure defendants are provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Thus, criminal defense attorneys must make every effort to confirm that the legal citations they supply exist and accurately reflect the law for which they are cited.”
Siddell represented Raziel Alvarez, who had been accused of criminal conduct by the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office. Although information about the charges against Alvarez is not available on the San Diego Superior Court website, arrest records show that a man by that name was detained on firearm charges in September 2022.
The order is devoid of details relating to the underlying criminal proceedings. However, Docket entries indicate that Div. One requested that Siddell respond to a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the Office of the Attorney General on July 3, inviting him to address whether the doctrine of constructive filing applies based on the 1973 California Supreme Court case of In re Benoit.
Opposition Filed
On July 9, Siddell filed the requested opposition, including a fabricated quote from In re Benoit and referencing an opinion that does not exist. He also cited two additional cases that do not address the issues that the brief says they resolve.
Following an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, Siddell filed a statement admitting his “lack of professionalism” in “failing to verify cases provided to [him] by artificial intelligence.” The court accepted his request to withdraw from representing Alvarez and appointed new counsel for the appeal.
At a September hearing, Siddell admitted to having taken courses on the use of AI and to being aware that the technology could “hallucinate” cases. He said that he would take a “trust but verify” approach to the use of such programs in the future.
Thursday’s decree provides:
“Attorney Siddell, like all California attorneys, is bound by the Business and Professions Code, the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, and the California Rules of Court. Business and Professions Code, section 6068…states that it is the duty of an attorney ‘to employ…those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge…by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.’ ”
Hallucinated Citation
The order adds:
“Attorney Siddell admitted to violating his professional duty by including a hallucinated citation and misrepresenting the law provided in other opinions. We infer he knowingly made a false statement based on this admission….He also violated rule 8.1115(a) of the California Rules of Court, which prohibits citation to unpublished opinions, because he cited a non-existent case, and rule 8.276(a)(4), which prohibits attorneys from committing unreasonable violations of the Rules of Court, because he misrepresented the substance of cases in filings before this court.”
Referencing last month’s decision by this district’s Div. Three in Noland v. Land of the Free L.P., in which an attorney, Amir Mostafavi, was sanctioned $10,000 for filing a brief riddled with fabricated quotations, the presiding justice said that Siddell’s conduct was “not as egregious” but said the behavior is “particularly disturbing because it involves the rights of a criminal defendant, who is entitled to due process…and representation by competent counsel.”
Continuing, McConnell remarked:
“Because we conclude Attorney Siddell has violated a Rule of Professional Conduct, we are required to ‘take appropriate corrective action.’…In line with this obligation, we are publishing this order.”
The order declares that the “monetary sanction will…reimburse the court for a small portion of the time and resources expended on this issue” and directs the “Clerk of this court to notify the State Bar of the sanctions against Attorney Siddell.”
The case is People v. Alvarez, D084581.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company