From LNU v. Bondi, released Nov. 4, 2025 by Ninth Circuit Judges Richard Paez, Carlos Bea, and Danielle Forrest (though note that, on the merits, the court ruled in petitioners’ favor):

On behalf of Petitioners, Attorney Mike Singh Sethi filed an opening brief with multiple fabricated citations and quotations. Sethi cited two cases that do not exist: Eduardo v. Garland, 28 F.4th 742 (9th Cir. 2022), cited at pages 5 and 16 of Petitioners’ opening brief, and Lay v. Holder, 729 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2013), cited and discussed at page 16. And Sethi twice attributed quotations to opinions in which the quoted language does not appear: Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001), at page 17 of the opening brief, and Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2015), at page 19.

After the panel denied the parties’ joint motion to submit this case on the briefs, Sethi filed a motion to correct the record regarding errata in the opening brief. That motion represented the two nonexistent cases—*Eduardo v. Garland *and Lay v. Holder—as typographical errors. Sethi sought to replace those cases with two cases that have similar names, entirely different reporter numbers, and in the case of Lay, a different year and a different holding. Both replacement cases either do not support or are weak support for their intended propositions. The motion does not explain how such significant typographical errors occurred.

Sethi did not appear for oral argument. Attorney William Rounds appeared on behalf of Petitioners instead. At oral argument, confronted with the above issues, Rounds at first insisted that artificial intelligence was not used to draft Petitioners’ briefs and that the errors were typographical. He later conceded that artificial intelligence might have been used by the individual who drafted the briefs, and that said individual was not yet licensed to practice law. Since oral argument, we have identified further issues in Petitioners’ reply brief, and we have identified at least two other opening briefs filed in pending cases in which Sethi cites cases that do not exist.

{Part of the quote attributed to Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2000), on page 4 and 5 of the reply brief does not appear in the opinion. On page 2 of the reply brief, counsel cites Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096–97 (9th Cir. 2007), for a proposition related to adverse credibility, but the case does not discuss adverse credibility. On page 5, counsel represents the holding of Zahedi v. INS, 222 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir. 2000), as concerning affidavits, but the opinion does not discuss affidavits….

In Anguiano Alvarado v. Bondi, No. 25-2485, Sethi cited three cases that do not appear to exist: Garcia v. Garland, 60 F.4th 1239 (9th Cir. 2023); Hernandez v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2017); and Vasquez-Zavala v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1086 (9th Cir. 2023). In Contreras Pelayo v. Bondi, No. 24-5168, Sethi cited two cases that do not appear to exist, at least at these reporter numbers: Eduardo v. Garland, 28 F.4th 742 (9th Cir. 2022) and Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland, 72 F.4th 446 (9th Cir. 2023).}

Attorneys Sethi and Rounds [the lawyer who orally argued the case, but who wasn’t on the initial brief -EV] are each **ORDERED **to show cause in writing, separately, why they should not be sanctioned, suspended, or disbarred from practice before this court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(b)(1)(B) for “conduct unbecoming a member of this court’s bar,” and under Ninth Circuit Rule 46-2(a) for “violating applicable rules of professional conduct.” *See *Cal. R. Pro. Conduct 3.1(a)(2) (“A lawyer shall not … present a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law ….”); *id. *R. 3.3(a)(1) (“A lawyer shall not … knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal ….”); see also Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45–50 (1991) (describing “the inherent power to impose sanctions for … bad faith conduct”). The response is due within 28 days of the filing of this order. 9th Cir. R. 46-2(d); 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 12.9(a).

If counsel do not file responses within 28 days, the court will take disciplinary action without further notice. *See *Fed. R. App. P. 46(b), (c); 9th Cir. R. 46-2(d). If counsel file responses that do not include requests for hearings, the right to a hearing will be deemed waived. Fed. R. App. P. 46(c); 9th Cir. R. 46-2(d)….

You can see the oral exchange at 8:47-13:20 and 24:00-26:15 of this video. An excerpt from the CourtListener oral argument transcript (checked by my assistant and by me):

Q: Recently, on behalf of your client, a document was filed indicating that there were errors in the briefing that was submitted and asserting that they were typographical errors. I’d like you to address that point and how they occurred.

A: Yes. So, there were two cases. The case names and the citations were somewhat garbled…. It looks like it was a copy and paste error or something like that.

Q: Wasn’t it the use of artificial intelligence?

A: It was not used.

Q: [Judge explains the details of one of the misquotations.] … Are you sure? Are you telling me the truth that you didn’t use AI to beef up your brief here?

A: No. AI was not used to beef up the brief….

Q: [Judge offers more details.] … Did you use AI in using that quote, counsel?

A: No….

Q: Then how did it get there? …

A: An individual who works at the office drafts briefs, prepares them.

Q: Maybe the individual. Did the individual use AI and report it to you?

A: It is possible, but that person did not—

Q: Aaaaah.

A: but that person did not, that person did not indicate that they used AI. And there had been many conversations.

Q: Counsel, we’re having a hard time believing that because of our review of this case, but we also looked at other cases from your office, and there are other cases that briefs have been filed that are currently pending in this court that have the same problem. And this doesn’t look like a typographical error. It doesn’t look like a copy and paste job. It looks like there is a use of technology being employed that is not being checked.

A: There had been many conversations with that individual who was drafting to verify that AI was not being used. And that individual said that AI was not being used to draft the briefs. And that had been repeated many times….

Q: The person who is doing the drafting is not the person whose name is on the brief that gets filed in the court? …

A: No, but the things that do get filed by the court get reviewed by the attorney….

Q: Is the person who is doing the drafting a lawyer?

A: No. [He] has graduated from law school, but is not a lawyer. But that person is no longer with the office ….

…

Q: So as I understand it, you have a non-lawyer … drafting a brief that you don’t cite check the cases yourself to see that the language is in there and your boss doesn’t either, right?

A: It [unintelligible] on every occasion.

Q: I’m sorry, what did you just say?

A: It sounds like not on every occasion.

Q: It sounds like? …