People v. Alvarez

Filed 10/2/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

COURT OF APPEAL – STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAZIEL RUIZ ALVAREZ, Defendant and Appellant. D084581 San Diego County Super. Ct. Nos. SCD300445, SCS323766

THE COURT: On July 9, 2025, Attorney LeRoy George Siddell, State Bar No. 48670, filed an opposition to a motion to dismiss on behalf of the defendant and appellant in case No. D084851, People v. Alvarez. The opposition included a quotation attributed to In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72, 87–88, but the purported quote did not exist in the case. Attorney Siddell later clarified that it was not a direct quotation because he modified it “to incorporate broader principles.” The opposition also included a citation to a case that does not exist: People v. Robinson (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 452. Counsel additionally cited two cases that do not address the issues for which they were cited: People v. Jones (2001) 25 Cal.4th 98 and People v. Williams (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 436. On July 30, 2025, we issued an order to show cause why sanctions, including monetary sanctions, should not be imposed for violations of Business & Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (d); Rule 3.3(a)(1) and (2) of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, outlining an

attorney’s duty of candor; and California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibiting citation to an opinion not certified for publication. On August 11, 2025, Attorney Siddell filed a statement admitting his “lack of professionalism” for “failing to verify cases provided to [him] by artificial intelligence.” We accepted his subsequent motion to withdraw as counsel after receiving confirmation that he informed his client of the request, and we directed Appellate Defenders, Inc. to appoint new counsel to restart the briefing sequence. The hearing on the order to show cause was held September 15, 2025. At the hearing, Attorney Siddell apologized for failing to verify the legal citations and sources included in his motion and explained that this failure resulted from feeling rushed. He reported he had taken courses regarding artificial intelligence (AI) and was aware that AI could hallucinate cases, but he did not verify the accuracy of any citations. He explained he relies on staff to help draft motions and briefs, but he recognized it is his responsibility to check the caselaw before submitting documents to the court. He said in the future he would “trust but verify” research provided through the use of AI. Attorney Siddell, like all California attorneys, is bound by the Business and Professions Code, the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, and the California Rules of Court. Business and Professions Code, section 6068, subdivision (d) states that it is the duty of an attorney “to employ . . . those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.” The Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit an attorney from “knowingly mak[ing] a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail[ing] to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.” (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3.3(a)(1), fn. omitted.) These rules also