LaRoche v. Darla Sterett, No. 24-AP-406 (2025)

Case details
Full caption
Richard LaRoche v. Darla Sterett (LaRoche)
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Vermont (VT)
Court
Vermont Supreme Court
Decided
2025
Richard LaRoche* v. Darla Sterett (LaRoche), Not Reported in Atl. Rptr. (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 3174940Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.VERMONT SUPREME COURTUNPUBLISHED ENTRY ORDER.Supreme Court of Vermont.Richard LaRoche*v.Darla Sterett (LaRoche)Case No. 24-AP-406|11/13/2025APPEALED FROM: Superior Court, Windsor Unit, FamilyDivision CASE NO. 317-9-14 WrdmENTRY ORDER*1 In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:Attorney Donald P. LoCascio represents appellant RichardLaRoche in the above-captioned matter. For the reasons setforth below, we conclude that Attorney LoCascio violatedVermont Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) by failing to makea reasonable inquiry into the accuracy of a legal contentioncontained in a brief he filed with this Court and impose asanction pursuant to Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure25(d)(3).Attorney LoCascio filed appellant's amended principal briefwith this Court on May 8, 2025.1 Page nine of the briefincluded the following language:“On remand, the trial court must proceed in accordancewith the mandate, as interpreted in light of the opinion. Thecourt cannot do anything which is contrary to either theletter or the spirit of the mandate construed in the light ofthe opinion of the court deciding the case.”—Sprague v.Nally, 2005 VT 85, 6, 178 Vt. 22, 878 A.2d 334, 6, 178Vt. 222, 228.On October 27, 2025,2 the Court issued an order notingthat Sprague v. Nally, 2008 VT 85, 178 Vt. 222, doesnot include the language counsel purported to quote fromit and explaining that his conduct therefore appeared toviolate Rule 11(b)(2). Attorney LoCascio was directed to filea response showing cause as to why he had not violatedRule 11(b). See V.R.A.P. 25(d)(2) (“If after notice and areasonable opportunity to respond, the Court determines thatV.R.C.P. 11(b) has been violated, the Court may, subjectto V.R.C.P. 11(c), impose an appropriate sanction on thoseviolating the rule or responsible for the violation.”); V.R.C.P.11(c)(1)(B) (“On its own initiative, the court may enter anorder describing the specific conduct that appears to violatesubdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or partyto show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) withrespect thereto.”).Attorney LoCascio filed a timely response to the show-cause order. Therein, he acknowledged that the amended briefincluded language that—while presented as a direct quotation—did not appear in the opinion to which it was attributed.He explained that this language “originated from a secondarysummary source and was mistakenly put into the brief as aquotation from that case.” He also accepted responsibility forthe error, withdrew the language at issue, and apologized tothe Court.At oral argument on November 5, 2025, the Court askedAttorney LoCascio to identify the secondary source hereferenced in his response to the show-cause order. Heexplained that his client used an “AI helper” to prepare aninitial draft of the brief, and that this technology was thesource of the language at issue.3 He conceded that he did notcheck to confirm its accuracy before filing his brief with thisCourt and reiterated his acceptance of responsibility for theerror.*2 “By presenting a document to the Court—whether bysigning, filing, submitting or later advocating it—an attorneyor self-represented party is making the certification providedby V.R.C.P. 11(b) as to that paper.” V.R.A.P. 25(d)(2). Thisincludes a certificationthat to the best of the person'sknowledge, information, and belief,formed after an inquiry reasonableunder the circumstances ... the claims,defenses, and other legal contentionstherein are warranted by existing lawor by a nonfrivolous argument for theextension, modification, or reversal of
Richard LaRoche* v. Darla Sterett (LaRoche), Not Reported in Atl. Rptr. (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2existing law or the establishment ofnew law.V.R.C.P. 11(b)(2).We conclude that Attorney LoCascio's conduct in includingthe quoted language and citation in his brief violatedRule 11(b)(2). As counsel conceded, the representationthat Sprague contained the quoted language was neither“warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argumentfor the extension, modification, or reversal of existing lawor the establishment of new law.” V.R.C.P. 11(b)(2). At aminimum, “an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,”V.R.C.P. 11(b), required that counsel read Sprague to confirmthe accuracy of the quotation he attributed to it. See Reporter'sNotes—1996 Amendment, V.R.C.P. 11 (explaining that Rule11, consistent with F.R.C.P. 11, imposes “a nondelegableresponsibility to the court” on person “signing, filing,submitting, or advocating a document”); see also, e.g., Parkv. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024) (per curiam) (“Atthe very least, the duties imposed by [F.R.C.P.] 11 require thatattorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validityof, the legal authorities on which they rely.”). He failed to doso.We therefore impose the following sanction pursuant toVermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(d)(2) and VermontRule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2). Attorney LoCascio isdirected to file a copy of this entry order into all casespending in Vermont Superior Court in which he has enteredan appearance. Within fourteen days of the entry of this order,Attorney LoCascio shall file a certification in this docketattesting that he has satisfied this requirement.BY THE COURT:Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate JusticeWilliam D. Cohen, Associate JusticeNancy J. Waples, Associate JusticeAll CitationsNot Reported in Atl. Rptr., 2025 WL 3174940Footnotes1Appellant was ordered to file an amended principal brief because his initial brief was not accompanied bya printed case and did not cite to the same as required under Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure 28(e)and 30(a)(1).2This case was ready in July 2025, but oral argument was not scheduled until November 2025 becauseAttorney LoCascio indicated his unavailability during the times for panel hearings in August, September, andOctober of that year.3As one court recently explained, AI tools can “hallucinate”—in other words, “produce blatantly incorrectinformation that, on its face, appears truthful,” such as “case citations that conform to the Bluebook, butultimately are not real.” Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 779 F.Supp.3d 341, 342 (E.D.N.Y. 2025).End of Document© 2025 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