Ethics for New Associates: What an Unverified Filing Costs

David C. Carr
David C. Carr | Law Office of David C. Carr

David C. Carr is an ethics lawyer whose practice is State Bar discipline defense, legal ethics advice, attorney licensing, and ethics expert testimony. He spent twelve years at the State Bar of California as a staff attorney, Deputy Trial Counsel, and Assistant Chief Trial Counsel before moving to the defense side of the discipline system he once worked within.

Live Video-Broadcast: November 19, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

A hallucinated citation now travels from the courtroom to the State Bar

Courts have stopped treating AI-generated citations as research errors. California’s new Code of Civil Procedure §128.7(d)(2)(A), effective January 1, 2027, bars filing any citation the responsible attorney has not personally verified. New Business & Professions Code §6068.1 requires lawyers to verify generative AI output and disclose its use to the court.

Sign a brief with hallucinated citations and Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions follow. Draw a $1,000 sanction in California and the court must report you to the State Bar. In Noland v. Land of the Free (2025), a $10,000 sanction became a State Bar prosecution and a stayed suspension. Follow a partner’s instruction and Rule 5.2 offers no Nuremberg defense unless the question was arguable. Bill the hours AI saved you and ABA Formal Opinion 512 says you billed time you did not spend.

You leave with a practitioner’s checklist: what to verify before you sign, when Rule 5.2 protects you, and how a sanctions order reaches your bar. You also learn to write time entries that state their basis, communicate under Rule 1.4, and respond when a billing dispute arrives.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • What Your Signature Certifies
    Under FRCP Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure §128.7, and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, your name on a filing attests to its purpose, its law, and its facts regardless of who directed the work, and Rules 3.1 through 3.5 govern your candor to the tribunal.
  • Verification and AI Disclosure
    New CCP §128.7(d)(2)(A), Bus. & Prof. Code §6068.1, and S.D. Cal. Bankruptcy General Order 210 now require personal verification of every citation and disclosure of generative AI use to the court.
  • Supervisor and Subordinate Duties
    Rule 5.1 makes supervising lawyers culpable when they order, ratify, or fail to remedy a violation; Rule 5.2 leaves the subordinate responsible unless the subordinate followed a reasonable resolution of an arguable question.
  • From Sanctions to Discipline
    Mandatory reporting under Bus. & Prof. Code §6068(o)(4) and §6087.7, voluntary federal referrals, and Noland v. Land of the Free show how a $10,000 sanction for hallucinated citations became a stayed suspension.
  • Communication and Fee Rules
    Rules 1.4, 1.5, and 1.15 set the duties to inform the client, charge a reasonable fee, and account for client funds within 14 days, and they sit behind every billing decision an associate makes.
  • Billing and Associate Exposure
    ABA Formal Opinions 93-379 and 512 require billing actual time, including AI-assisted work, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §6148(b) requires every bill to state its basis, and Rule 8.4(c) reaches an associate who knowingly sends a padded invoice.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: November 19, 2026

  • 2:30 pm – 4:40 pm Eastern
  • 1:30 pm – 3:40 pm Central
  • 12:30 pm – 2:40 pm Mountain
  • 11:30 am – 1:40 pm Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

David-C.-Carr_Ethics-LawyerLaw-Office-of-David-C.-Carr_FedBarDavid C. Carr, Ethics Lawyer | Law Office of David C. Carr

David C. Carr is an ethics lawyer whose practice is State Bar discipline defense, legal ethics advice, attorney licensing, and ethics expert testimony. He spent twelve years at the State Bar of California as a staff attorney, Deputy Trial Counsel, and Assistant Chief Trial Counsel before moving to the defense side of the discipline system he once worked within.

  • Education & Credentials

He earned his J.D. from Loyola Law School Los Angeles in 1986 and a B.A. in History from UCLA in 1977. He was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1986, the State Bar of Texas in 2022, and the State Bar of New Mexico in 2023, and is admitted to the U.S. District Courts for the Central (1986), Southern (2002), and Northern (2004) Districts of California.

  • Recognition & Leadership

He holds an AV Preeminent peer review rating from Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating for legal ability and ethical standards awarded by fellow attorneys. He served as President of the Association of Discipline Defense Counsel from 2008 to 2011, and from 2018 to 2021 sat on COPRAC, the State Bar of California’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, the body that issues California’s formal ethics opinions. He has published more than twenty articles on legal ethics in the San Diego Daily Transcript, the Los Angeles Daily Journal, and San Diego County Bar Association publications, and has delivered more than twenty presentations to bar and professional groups on topics including client trust accounts, fee agreements, and technology in law practice. He also writes two long-running commentaries on California attorney discipline, the Kafkaesq blog and California Legal Ethics.

  • Professional Involvement

He is a member of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers and the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility and has served on the San Diego County Bar Association Legal Ethics Committee since 2002. He was an adjunct professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law from 2017 to 2021.

  • Experience

He began his career as a business and commercial litigator before joining the State Bar of California in 1989, where he spent twelve years as a staff attorney (1989), Deputy Trial Counsel (1992–1999), and Assistant Chief Trial Counsel and Manager in the discipline enforcement office (1999–2001), prosecuting and supervising attorney discipline cases. In 2001 he established the Law Office of David C. Carr, a practice devoted exclusively to legal ethics and State Bar matters and has since represented hundreds of California attorneys and bar applicants. He defends lawyers at every stage of the disciplinary process, from the initial State Bar inquiry through investigation and formal proceedings before the State Bar Court of California and the California Supreme Court and represents applicants in moral character and reinstatement matters before the Committee of Bar Examiners.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Verification, Supervision, and How a Sanctions Order Becomes Bar Discipline | 2:30pm – 3:30pm

This session examines the personal filing obligations every new associate assumes the moment they sign a pleading, motion, or paper under FRCP Rule 11(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, with particular focus on the AI-hallucination cases reshaping sanctions law in 2024–2025. Attorneys will learn how the supervisory framework under Model Rules 5.1 and 5.2 allocates responsibility between associates and supervising partners — and where the ‘I followed orders’ defense fails. The session closes by tracing the referral pipeline from a sanctions order to state bar discipline, including reciprocal discipline across jurisdictions, so new associates understand the full professional-life consequences of a single deficient filing.

BREAK | 3:30pm – 3:40pm

SESSION 2 – Client Communication and Billing Judgment: From the First Time Entry Through the Fee Dispute | 3:40pm – 4:40pm

This session teaches new associates the ethical framework governing client communication and legal billing from the moment they record their first time entry through the resolution of a fee dispute. Attorneys will learn how Model Rules 1.4, 1.5, and 1.15 apply to everyday billing decisions, which trigger grievances, how ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024) changes the calculus for AI-assisted work, and how fee disputes escalate into discipline. Attendees leave with concrete practices for writing time entries, structuring client communications, and responding to billing complaints within firm procedures.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Professional Responsibility/Ethics

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics / Professionalism

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 Enhanced Ethics

Florida

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Ethics Hours

Receive CLE credit in Florida via attorney submission.
Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics or Professional Responsibility Education

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics, Civility, Professionalism

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 Ethics

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 Professional Fitness and Integrity

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 Professional Responsibility

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 Ethics / Professionalism minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Nevada

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics / Professionalism

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 Professional Conduct

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 Ethics / Professionalism

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 Ethics / Professionalism

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Dual

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 Ethics / Professionalism Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Ethics Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 Ethics / Professionalism

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
The Necessary Evils of Funding a Trust
The Necessary Evils of Funding a Trust Wed, October 14, 2026
Live Webcast
How Qualified Settlement Funds Streamline Settlements
How Qualified Settlement Funds Streamline Settlements Thu, October 15, 2026
Live Webcast