''Signing a legal document ensures that the attorney read the document and conducted a reasonable inquiry into the existing law," U.S. District Judge Kelly H. Rankin proclaimed in his February 24, 2025 Sanctions Order against attorneys at Morgan & Morgan. See Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., D. Wyo., No. 2:23-cv-118-KHR, sanction order issued 2/24/25.
Wadsworth involved a lawyer using artificial intelligence to draft a motion in limine. However, the cases cited within the motion did not exist. While the improper use of artificial intelligence in law practice may be likened to negligence or naivety, the outcome in Wadsworth should concern all lawyers who work with other lawyers, whether internally or externally, and ultimately are signatories to pleadings filed in court.
In Wadsworth, lawyers that had zero involvement in the underlying litigation — but who were signatories to the pleadings — were sanctioned alongside "lead counsel." Judge Kelly H. Rankin (D. Wyo.) fined lead counsel, Rudwin Ayala, $3,000, while Michael Morgan and Taly Goody (who is a licensed Wyoming lawyer, with her own law firm separate and apart from Morgan & Morgan, and per the filed affidavits had no involvement in the preparation of the motion in limine) were fined $1,000 each.
Judge Rankin, citing federal case law, held that a lawyer's Civil Rule 11 "duty is a nondelegable responsibility" and that "blind reliance on another attorney can be an improper delegation of this duty and a violation of Rule 11."
Said differently, in light of Wadsworth, if an attorney authorizes another to sign a document on their behalf without first reviewing it, and that document contains misstatements of law or fact, such conduct may be sanctionable under Rule 11 and could also constitute a violation of the state's ethical duty of competence.
Prof. Cond. R. 1.1 states that "a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." Of course, the use of the term "requires" reinforces that competency is mandatory and not optional.
Further, Comment 5 to Prof. Cond. R. 1.1 states in part that "competent handling of a particular matter includes inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem...". Thus, the sanctions in Wadsworth, while in a different state, support the notion that lawyers must be mindful (and aware) of what pleadings are filed under their signature, even if they are serving as "backup" or "local counsel." Even with the advent of technology, lawyers continue to have an ethical duty to check the cites used in their legal filings and "read the case to ensure the excerpt is existing law to support their propositions and arguments," as Judge Kelly H. Rankin said in his Sanction's Order in Wadsworth.
Below are a few notable cases that shed light on how courts have previously interpreted the limited involvement of co-counsel when determining sanctions.
In Artho v. Happy State Bank (In re Artho), 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 2912, the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas sanctioned an attorney who had limited involvement in the proceeding. Despite a limited role, the attorney's signature on pleadings resulted in sanctions, as signing pleadings carries a responsibility to ensure their validity. The court considered the limited involvement a mitigating factor and imposed a reduced sanction of $4,000 on the lawyer.
In Gold v. Last Experience, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3266, the Southern District of New York sanctioned co-counsel for filing a frivolous and harassing suit, despite their involvement limited to signing off on the pleadings. The court emphasized that signing pleadings imposes personal responsibility for their content.
In Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer & Associates, APC, 206 Cal. App. 4th 1095, 142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 646 (2012), a California appellate court affirmed a trial court ruling that a lack of involvement by co-counsel did not preclude liability against civil claims. The court noted that the attorneys had been listed as counsel on various filings for several years, with no evidence suggesting their involvement was limited. Moreover, they failed to demonstrate any independent effort to investigate or verify the legitimacy of the claims.
Simply put, sanctions against co-counsel with limited involvement in litigation may arise when their actions, such as signing pleadings or failing to meet procedural obligations, are deemed to violate professional standards or court rules.
These decisions call into question a widespread practice among law firms of including the names of prominent attorneys, senior partners or trial counsel as signatories on all pleadings, even when those lawyers are not involved and have not reviewed the filings. While firms may still choose to list such counsel, those named on the pleadings must be able to demonstrate that they independently evaluated and researched the merits of the claims and positions taken in the filings. Even if serving as local counsel in a limited capacity, engagement letters should clearly outline that all filings must be approved if they contain your signature. Failure to do so could expose you and your office to liability.
2025 Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association. Reprinted with permission.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
