Matter of Zareh, No. 2025-05041 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2026)

Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Northern District of Texas (N.D. TEX)
Decided
Feb. 10, 2026
Disposition
Publicly Censured
Matter of Zareh, --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00619 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 363103Supreme Court, Appellate Division,First Department, New York.In the MATTER OF Omid ZAREH,an attorney and counselor-at-law:Attorney Grievance Committee for theFirst Judicial Department, Petitioner,v.Omid Zareh (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 2763282), Respondent.Motion No. 2025-04518|Case No. 2025-05041|Entered: February 10, 2026Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the AttorneyGrievance Committee for the First Judicial Department.Respondent, Omid Zareh, was admitted to the Bar of theState of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of theSupreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on August21, 1996.Attorneys and Law FirmsJorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney GrievanceCommittee, New York (Roy E. Chon, of counsel), forpetitioner.Respondent, pro se.Present – Hon. Cynthia S. Kern, Justice Presiding, Tanya R.Kennedy, Julio Rodriguez III, John R. Higgitt, Margaret A.Chan, Justices.OpinionPer Curiam*1 Respondent Omid Zareh was admitted to the practiceof law in the State of New York by the Second JudicialDepartment on August 21, 1996. At all times relevant tothis proceeding, he has maintained an office for the practiceof law within the First Judicial Department (Rules for AttyDisciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.7[a][2]).In the course of opposing a motion to dismiss a complaintin litigation venued in the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Texas, respondent, as one ofthe reviewing attorneys representing plaintiff, submitted abrief that contained numerous citation errors and repeatedlymisrepresented case law for propositions it did not support,leading defense counsel to assert in reply that the briefhad been drafted using artificial intelligence (AI). Counselacknowledged the errors contained in their brief, apologizedfor them, and attributed the errors to “mistakes, ... alack of familiarity amongst counsel, siloed research andknowledge, and poor integration of the work product ofmultiple attorneys.”Because this could have explained the typographical errorsand misquoted law in the brief but did not adequately explainhow the misstated legal principles and incongruous citationswere drafted in the first place, the District Court orderedcounsel to show cause in writing “why they should not besanctioned for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11and Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 3.03”for the misrepresentations. The District Court independentlyfound that ChatGPT described at least one of the citedcases in the same erroneous manner as counsel, supportinga conclusion that given the “type and trend of error,” theywere AI-generated. Counsel, including respondent, admittedthat they did not review or verify each of the citations andthus could not explain how the drafting process could have ledto false case citations and the recitation of unsupported legalpropositions, leading the District Court to conduct a hearingon the matter at which respondent conceded that he had failedin adequately supervising the drafting attorney.Further, the District Court found that the only explanationoffered – that a “grid” of cases maintained by the draftingassociate overseen by respondent became degraded as hedeleted cases in the course of funneling his research—was insufficient to explain how the brief came to containinternally inconsistent citations to the same cases, and couldnot logically have produced the types of errors identified bythe District Court, many instances of which formed the solesupport for the legal propositions advanced in plaintiff's brief.The District Court found the drafting associate's denials ofAI use not to be credible and found that the brief was AI-generated.Moreover, while the District Court did not believe thatcounsel, including respondent, used AI or knew of its usein the course of preparing the brief, the District Courtfound that counsel's denial of the use of AI while admittingto not having reviewed the cited cases, and thus beingunable to competently explain their appearance in the brief,
Matter of Zareh, --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00619 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2constituted bad faith. The District Court thus found thatcounsel, including respondent, presented to the Court anunreviewed AI-drafted brief, thereby violating FRCP 11(b)by failing to “certify[ ] that to the best of [their] knowledge,information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonableunder the circumstances ... [that] the claims, defenses, andother legal contentions therein are warranted by existinglaw” (FRCP 11[b]), for which the District Court admonishedcounsel, including respondent.*2 The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) now seeksan order, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(2), 22 NYCRR1240.13, and the doctrine of reciprocal discipline, findingthat respondent has been disciplined by a foreign jurisdiction,directing him to demonstrate why discipline should not beimposed in New York for the misconduct underlying hisdiscipline by the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Texas, and publicly censuring respondent, or, inthe alternative, sanctioning respondent as the Court deemsappropriate. Respondent opposes the motion.In a proceeding seeking reciprocal discipline pursuant to22 NYCRR 1240.13(b), respondent may raise the followingdefenses: (1) a lack of notice or opportunity to be heard in theforeign jurisdiction constituting a deprivation of due process;(2) an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct; or (3)that the misconduct for which the attorney was disciplinedin the foreign jurisdiction does not constitute misconduct inthis State (see Matter of Milara, 194 A.D.3d 108, 110, 143N.Y.S.3d 358 [1st Dept. 2021]).Contrary to respondent's position, none of the 1240.13(b)defenses is available to him because he received sufficientdue process in that he was given notice of the AI relatedallegations; he was afforded three opportunities to addressthem via the initial July 17, 2024 letter to the District Courtcontaining his sworn declaration, the July 26, 2024 responseto the court's order to show cause containing respondent'ssworn declaration, and his testimony at the show causehearing; and the District Court's finding that AI was used todraft the brief at issue was based on, inter alia, its examinationof the brief's contents and errors, an adverse credibilitydetermination as to the drafting attorney, and its rejection ofrespondent's arguments.Further, the conduct for which respondent was sanctioned asviolative of FRCP rule 11(b) would constitute misconductin violation of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct(22 NYCRR 1200.0) rules 3.1(a) and 3.1(b)(1).1 It is thusof no moment that respondent was initially admonished forviolating a civil practice rule as opposed to an attorneyconduct disciplinary rule. It is further of no moment that theDistrict Court found that respondent was most likely initiallyunaware that AI had been used to draft the brief, becausethe Court nevertheless made clear to respondent that “it wasbad faith to file this brief and then to come back and defendit,” implicating respondent's actual knowledge in pursuinghis course of conduct in light of the successive proceduresemployed by the District Court.As to the appropriate sanction, “significant weight shouldbe given to the sanction imposed by the jurisdiction wherethe misconduct occurred because the foreign jurisdictionhas the greatest interest in fashioning sanctions formisconduct” (Matter of Blumenthal, 165 A.D.3d 85, 86, 81N.Y.S.3d 898 [1st Dept. 2018]; see Matter of Jaffe, 78 A.D.3d152, 158, 908 N.Y.S.2d 623 [1st Dept. 2010]), and only inrare instances will this Court depart from its general rule (seeMatter of Karambelas, 203 A.D.3d 75, 80–81, 159 N.Y.S.3d434 [1st Dept. 2022]; Matter of McHallam, 160 A.D.3d 89,72 N.Y.S.3d 90 [1st Dept. 2018]).A public censure, as requested by the AGC, is theappropriate sanction because it is commensurate with andequivalent to the public reprimand issued by the DistrictCourt and is in general accord with precedent involvingcomparable misconduct absent extremely unusual mitigatingcircumstances, of which there is no evidence here (see e.g.Matter of Weitzman, 202 A.D.3d 5, 158 N.Y.S.3d 113 [1stDept. 2021] [censure pursuant to 1240.8(a)(5) for, inter alia,asserting frivolous claims on behalf of clients in violation ofrule 3.1(a)]; Matter of Mueller, 194 A.D.3d 68, 143 N.Y.S.3d1 [1st Dept. 2021] [censure based on reprimand in New Jerseyfor, inter alia, failure to supervise an associate attorney];Matter of Vialet, 120 A.D.3d 91, 987 N.Y.S.2d 65 [1st Dept.2014] [censure based on public reprimand by the SecondCircuit for, inter alia, submission of deficient briefs]; Matterof Hsu, 104 A.D.3d 138, 958 N.Y.S.2d 900 [1st Dept. 2013][same]; Matter of Zhang, 101 A.D.3d 79, 954 N.Y.S.2d 11[1st Dept. 2012] [same]; Matter of Mundie, 97 A.D.3d 194,945 N.Y.S.2d 310 [1st Dept. 2012] [same]).*3 Accordingly, the AGC's motion for reciprocal disciplinepursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(2) and 22 NYCRR 1240.13,predicated on similar discipline imposed by the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Texas, should begranted to the extent that respondent Omid Zareh is publiclycensured.
Matter of Zareh, --- N.Y.S.3d ---- (2026)2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00619 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3All concur.Wherefore, it is Ordered that the motion by the AttorneyGrievance Committee for the First Judicial Department forreciprocal discipline, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(2)and 22 NYCRR 1240.13, predicated on similar disciplineimposed by the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Texas, is granted, and respondent, Omid Zareh, ispublicly censured.All Citations--- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2026 WL 363103, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00619Footnotes1New York rules 5.1(b)(2) and 5.1(d)(2)(ii) are also implicated because respondent failed to properly supervisethe drafting associate on the brief at issue, as evinced by his admissions during the show cause hearing.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access