Legal tech · Industry brief

The Board of Immigration Appeals suspended Orange County attorney Mike Singh Sethi from immigration practice for six months following a Ninth Circuit discipline for briefs citing nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations. In Matter of Sethi, 30 I&N Dec. 112 (designated precedent October 1, 2026), the Board held that lawyers disciplined for AI hallucinations receive no special treatment under ordinary reciprocal discipline rules, establishing that misconduct is misconduct regardless of the tool used. The suspension covers practice before the Board, immigration courts, USCIS, ICE and CBP, extending a single federal court sanction across the entire immigration practice landscape. The Ninth Circuit's June 3 order in Lnu v. Blanche imposed the sanction not for using AI itself but for subsequent false statements to the court denying or minimizing AI involvement. Beyond the six-month suspension, Sethi and co-counsel William Rounds each face $2,500 fines and a two-year requirement to certify in all filings whether generative AI was used and that citations are real. The Board rejected Sethi's arguments that he was unaware of AI involvement and that financial hardship warranted reconsideration, emphasizing that attorneys must comply with professional conduct rules regardless of tools employed. The court also cited a 2024 study finding hallucination rates of 17 percent in Westlaw AI research tools and 33 percent in Lexis AI tools, signaling that risk extends beyond free chatbots.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 5, 2026, in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a climate case with significant precedent implications for state environmental litigation. The case centers on whether Colorado local governments can apply Colorado tort law to seek damages from fossil-fuel companies for climate-related harms when the conduct and emissions extend beyond state borders. The Court's existing interstate-pollution precedent—particularly the distinction between source states where pollution originates and affected states where harm occurs—was a major focus; both the companies and the United States argued that established precedent limits Colorado's ability to apply its law to an interstate pollution problem, while Boulder contended its claims are traditional tort actions based on deceptive conduct causing injuries within Colorado. The Court indicated multiple potential paths forward, including a narrow ruling based on jurisdiction, reliance on existing interstate-pollution doctrine, or a broader decision on constitutional limits of state tort authority for cross-border harms. A ruling favoring Colorado could prompt similar climate litigation by other municipalities nationwide, though the decision's scope and ultimate impact on state environmental authority remain uncertain pending the Court's decision.