Lawyers from Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C. have been slapped with a fine of $5,000 and ordered to prepare a dossier on all the ways they malpracticed against their client in a recent case. In addition, they must send letters to judges listed on their fake opinions admitting their malpractice. However, Judge Kevin Castel did not refer the attorneys for discipline, much to their relief. The court also dismissed the case against Avianca Airlines, putting an end to the case that made it to the front page of the New York Times.
The saga began when Peter LoDuca, a lawyer representing defendant Roberto Mata, filed a response to Avianca’s motion to dismiss, citing multiple non-existent cases. When Judge Castel pointed out the errors, LoDuca submitted court decisions that were found to be fake. It emerged that LoDuca had simply put his name on filings drafted by his colleague Steven Schwartz, who had used ChatGPT to research the case. Despite being told by opposing counsel that no such cases existed, Schwartz submitted the fake decisions in good faith.
Judge Castel found bad faith by LoDuca, Schwartz, and Levidow, who failed to move to amend the multiple false attestations made to the court. The court imposed Rule 11 sanctions not just because of the harm to the plaintiff but also to the courts and the legal profession. It noted that there was potential harm to the reputation of judges and courts whose names were falsely invoked as authors of the bogus opinions and to the reputation of a party attributed with fictional conduct. Moreover, the incident promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the American judicial system.
Judge Castel ordered the lawyers to inform their client and the judges whose names were wrongfully invoked of the sanctions imposed but did not require an apology. Any decision to apologize is left to Respondents, the judge said. While the lawyers avoided disciplinary measures, the incident highlights the importance of upholding ethical standards in the legal profession.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Related to the Above News
What sentence did the lawyers from Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C. receive from the court?
The lawyers received a fine of $5,000 and were ordered to prepare a dossier on all the ways they malpracticed against their client in a recent case. They were also required to send letters to judges listed on their fake opinions admitting their malpractice.
Were the lawyers referred for discipline by Judge Kevin Castel?
No, Judge Kevin Castel did not refer the attorneys for discipline.
What happened to Avianca Airlines in the case?
The court dismissed the case against Avianca Airlines, putting an end to the case that made it to the front page of the New York Times.
How did the saga begin?
The saga began when Peter LoDuca, a lawyer representing defendant Roberto Mata, filed a response to Avianca's motion to dismiss, citing multiple non-existent cases.
What did it emerge about Steven Schwartz?
It emerged that Steven Schwartz had used ChatGPT to research the case and had submitted fake decisions in good faith despite being told by opposing counsel that no such cases existed.
What did Judge Castel find about the lawyers?
Judge Castel found bad faith by LoDuca, Schwartz, and Levidow, who failed to move to amend the multiple false attestations made to the court.
What did the court note about the incident?
The court noted that there was potential harm to the reputation of judges and courts whose names were falsely invoked as authors of the bogus opinions and to the reputation of a party attributed with fictional conduct. Moreover, the incident promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the American judicial system.
Did the lawyers have to apologize for their actions?
No, Judge Castel did not require an apology. Any decision to apologize is left to Respondents.
Please note that the FAQs provided on this page are based on the news article published. While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, it is always recommended to consult relevant authorities or professionals before making any decisions or taking action based on the FAQs or the news article.
