... alongside the mediator’s firm was not disqualified by imputation absent specific evidence it received information from the mediator.

... matter because it involves the same company and even some of the same payments. The Court also found that the firm’s screening was inadequate, so the whole firm was disqualified. However, another firm that that had already appeared as co-counsel for the Investor ... (cont.)

... argued they should not be disqualified anyway because it was not the same “matter” (i.e., it was a different litigation), but the TX Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that what qualifies as a “matter” under the rule depends on the facts and circumstances, and here it was the same ... (cont.)

... the mediator under Rule 1.12 (neutral can’t represent party in same matter). Apparently, the mediator’s firm ran a conflict check before taking the case, but the sister had gotten married and changed her name in the interim, so they didn’t notice the conflict. The mediator’s firm ... (cont.)

... an Investor sued the sister in a separate litigation, claiming that the terms of the settlement with the brother in the first litigation constituted a misuse of company assets. The mediator’s law firm appeared in the second case for the Investor, and the sister moved to disqualify ... (cont.)

... Thanksgiving dinners he had made for him, “so nobody was up or down one.” The D. Conn. grievance committee recommended against reinstatement because, among other reasons, the lawyer's untenable reliance on the distinguishable opinion “reflects poor comprehension and/or weak legal reasoning.”

... he claimed that the improper referral fees should not prevent his reinstatement because he reported them on his taxes, because “ultimately it was [father-in-law's] fee to share with me,” and because the money he received from his father-in-law was the equivalent value of all the ... (cont.)

...cases to his father-in-law (also a lawyer) in return for a referral fee. He claimed this was justified by a prior CT Bar Association opinion that was easily distinguishable (it permitted collection of contingency fees during a suspension for work done prior to the suspension). In 2025, ...(cont.)

... issue a new show cause order sua sponte, possibly because it was dismissing the lawyer’s case anyway. It doesn’t appear he got sanctioned in the first case either, possibly for the same reason. (No word yet on whether Md. disciplinary authorities are looking into it).

... hadn’t been repeated in the past. A different D. Md. judge later reviewed a summary judgment brief the lawyer had filed back in March 2025, before implementing the protocols, and found additional hallucinations. “Despite having ample reason to do so,” the second judge did not ... (cont.)

... the filing and in May 2025 told the court he had implemented new protocols to ensure that the “exclusive reliance upon #artificialintelligence in our briefing is now prohibited.” However, he “didn’t take the opportunity to revisit filings in other cases to ensure the same errors” ... (cont.)

... “tardiness by its very nature is conduct that occurs outside the presence of the court,” so this was “indirect” contempt and required initiation of a separate contempt proceeding.

... vacated the contempt finding because the judge failed properly to distinguish between direct and indirect contempt. Judges can find a lawyer in direct contempt within a proceeding if the “conduct occurred in the immediate view or presence of the court.” However, ... (cont.()

... court of a potential conflict, he hoped for the best and showed up about 45 minutes late for the second hearing. The second hearing judge found him in direct criminal contempt because the misconduct, showing up late, occurred right in front of him. The WY Supreme Court ... (cont.)

... instituting even more robust AI policies and education. The court nevertheless ordered the firm to get each attorney’s acknowledgement of the policy next time. The individual attorney was publicly reprimanded, reported to the AL and GA state bars, and her pro hac vice admission was revoked.

... a pretty good AI policy since 2023 (updated in 2025) that would have prohibited such use. However, the firm admitted that it had no record the attorney acknowledged or read the policy. The firm escaped sanctions by paying the other side’s attorneys’ fees without quibbling and by ... (cont.)

...tripled down, and quadrupled down on arguments unsupported by the authorities cited.” When the judge finally asked if #artificialintelligence was used, she initially falsely answered "no." The judge issued a show cause order to her and her firm. It turns out the firm actually had ... (cont.)