A California appeals court has affirmed a workplace violence restraining order (WVRO) against Neill Francis Niblett, a former senior mechanic at the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The order, which protects Assistant Chief Samuel S. from Niblett, stemmed from a statement Niblett made that the court deemed a credible threat of violence. However, the court’s decision also brought to light serious concerns about the misuse of artificial intelligence in legal writing and the ethical obligations of attorneys.
The Background of the Case
The County of Los Angeles sought the WVRO after an incident where Niblett made a statement to a secretary, Cari Hughes. The statement in question was, “If they don’t change things in this department, they’re going to have another situation like they had with Tatone.” The “Tatone” reference was to a 2021 incident where a firefighter fatally shot another firefighter at Station 81. The County argued this statement constituted a credible threat.
The trial court agreed, finding that Niblett’s statement, referencing the shooting, constituted a credible threat of violence under California Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8. The WVRO, issued on January 18, 2023, bars Niblett from harassing Samuel or entering his workplace and prohibits him from possessing firearms or ammunition.
Niblett appealed the order, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding, arguing the WVRO violated his First and Second Amendment rights.
The Court’s Decision
The Second Appellate District, Division One, upheld the WVRO, rejecting Niblett’s arguments.
The Court’s Reasoning
The court addressed several key points:
Evidence of a Credible Threat: The court determined that the trial court correctly found Niblett’s statement to Hughes constituted a credible threat of violence. The court emphasized that the context of the statement was crucial, considering the history of conflict and the recent shooting at Station 81. Niblett’s statement was made in the context of his dissatisfaction with management decisions. The court found that a reasonable person hearing this statement would likely interpret it as a threat.
First Amendment Challenge: The court rejected Niblett’s argument that the WVRO violated his First Amendment rights. The court reasoned that since the statement was deemed a credible threat of violence, it fell outside the scope of First Amendment protection.
Second Amendment Challenge: The court also dismissed Niblett’s Second Amendment claim. The court noted that the Supreme Court case *United States v. Rahimi* did not require the trial court to undertake a specific three-part test before including the firearm restriction in the restraining order.
Other Arguments: The court found that Niblett had forfeited certain arguments by either failing to raise them adequately in his initial brief or introducing them for the first time in his reply brief.
The Ethical Concerns: Misuse of Artificial Intelligence
A significant portion of the court’s opinion focused on the behavior of Niblett’s appellate counsel, Robert W. Lucas. The court found evidence suggesting that Attorney Lucas had misused artificial intelligence in preparing the opening brief. This included:
* Incorrect Citations: The brief contained miscitations of numerous cases, including those that were central to his arguments.
* Non-Existent Case: The brief cited a case, “Montebello Unified School District v. State Board of Education (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1685,” that did not exist.
* Misrepresentation of Case Holdings: Attorney Lucas misrepresented the facts or holdings of several case authorities, including *Rahimi* and *Scripps Health v. Marin*.
Attorney Lucas, in a notice of errata, admitted to making a false statement of law regarding the non-existent case, claiming that it was added by AI and that he did not catch it before filing. However, the court noted that he did not address all the other errors identified by the County.
The court found this behavior “troubling” and raised potential ethical issues. The court emphasized that the legal system relies on the integrity of counsel and the bench. Citing non-existent authority or misrepresenting case holdings undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
As a result, the court issued an order for Attorney Lucas to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on him for the misuse of artificial intelligence in briefing the appeal.
Impact and Implications
This case highlights the growing role of artificial intelligence in legal practice and the potential pitfalls that come with it. The court’s decision serves as a reminder of the importance of:
* Accuracy in Legal Writing: Attorneys must ensure the accuracy of their citations and the correct representation of legal precedents.
* Ethical Obligations: Attorneys have a professional and ethical duty to be truthful and accurate in their submissions to the court.
* Verification of AI Output: Attorneys using AI tools must carefully review and verify the information generated by these tools.
The court’s decision underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the appellate process and the need for attorneys to uphold their ethical obligations, especially as AI tools become more prevalent in legal work. The show-cause order against Niblett’s counsel signals that the court takes these issues very seriously.