From yesterday's decision in In re Nwaubani, from the Fourth Circuit (Judges Marvin Quattlebaum, Allison Rushing, and DeAndrea Gist Benjamin):
This attorney discipline matter stems from attorney Eric Chibueze Nwaubani's briefing submitted in Bolden v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., No. 23-2195, 2025 WL 1355304 (4th Cir. May 9, 2025), an employment discrimination appeal argued before this court. Concerned that Nwaubani's briefing contained citations to nonexistent judicial opinions potentially derived from generative artificial intelligence (AI), the court's Standing Panel on Attorney Discipline initiated disciplinary proceedings against Nwaubani to determine whether his conduct violated any of the court's Local Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the show cause notices, responses and briefing in this case, we determine that Nwaubani's conduct violated Local Rule 46(g)(1)(c). As a result, and as further explained below, we issue a 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.
