Randy Herman

@randyhermanlaw.com

5423 Followers 1186 Following

I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. "I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted."

Current presidential line of succession
Air quality index: 69
NC Real Estate Horror Stories: Robots, Aliens and Dead Hands
Map of Raleigh showing clear segregation
Sign on street corner: $40T debt sick Stoned Mad suicidal Give me $$$ Or I bomb U 1234real.com God bless
Creepy signs with cabbage patch dolls dressed up in colonial outfits
Flowers in foreground, mountains in background
Alpine-style shops
Flame azalea
Rhododendron blossoms
Cows grazing in the mountains
Black bear
Sandy lakeshore with lake, trees and blue skies
Map of Lake Gaston drawn on the side of a fish statue
Reign (noun): royal authority
Patel and Bongino "had grown more infuriated as they realized the scale of the mess for which they were now being blamed"
Penguin in the face
The author with a beard
Alligator for context
AI Overview: "In most contexts, BBL Stands for Brazilian Butt Lift"
At the motions hearing, the Defendants pressed that the “best” way to read 20 U.S.C. § 76j(b) was as a prohibition on memorializing “deceased” individuals, based on a passing reference to a piece of legislative history that they did not cite in their briefs. See Mot. Hr’g Tr. at 63:4–64:21. But nothing in the plain text of the statute endorses such a constricted reading. And nothing in the ordinary meaning of “memorial” suggests that the word necessarily denotes posthumous commemoration, even by the Defendants’ own cited dictionary definition. Cf. Scalia & Garner, Reading Law 69–72 (describing the ordinary-meaning canon).
NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 202 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, by CHRISTOPHER A. BINA, TODD BLANCHE, WILLIAM W. LOTHROP, WILLIAM K. MARSHALL, III, SHANE SALEM, DANA R. DIGIACOMO, DONALD J. TRUMP, PAMELA J. BONDI. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. (Layendecker, Elizabeth) Modified event on 5/28/2026 (znmw). (Entered: 05/27/2026)
Photo of the author with wild pitcher plants
A hearing is scheduled 5/27 @ 11:00 eastern
Wild Venus flytraps
MINUTE ORDER: A hearing on Plaintiffs' 179 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is set for 5/27/2026 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 15 - In Person (Audio Line Available) before Judge Royce C. Lamberth. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 5/21/2026. (lcrcl1)
Swimming prohibited sign in woods
Fan-tailed darter
Greek style library with green lawn and blue sky
Dick Tracy
Notice of Special Appearance
Some bullshit
Detail from the order
Great blue heron wading in stream
Origami rose and stem, all black
Old classic bank building with a neon sign reading "Dank Bank"
Origami roses
Two toasted halves of a plain bagel, one topped with berry cream cheese and the other with bacon
Tree in front of creek
Set Hearing as to James Brien Comey, Jr. - Initial Appearance set for 5/11/2026 at 11:00 AM in Greenville - Courtroom before US Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank. (Zak, J)
Paper rose
Conclusion By submitting a brief containing fabricated quotations and misstatements of case holdings and failing to be forthright about his actions, Renfer abused both the judicial process and the trust placed in him by the Court and the people of the Eastern District of North Carolina. The Court publicly reprimands him for his misconduct. The Court also orders that the Clerk of Court submit this opinion for publication. And it orders the United States Attorney’s Office to mail a copy of this Order to Renfer at his current or last known address.
Attorneys should ask themselves whether the time and effort they will save by using generative AI to draft a legal document is worth the damage their career and professional reputation will suffer if they do not ensure the document’s accuracy.
the Court will publicly reprimand him. This sanction is “more serious than an admonition” and is appropriate where someone “has caused harm or potential harm to . . . the administration of justice
While the Court is inclined to impose a significant sanction, it recognizes that Renfer has already paid a price for his conduct. The Court’s show cause order and the show cause hearing received substantial attention from the legal press
Through his conduct, Renfer breached the trust placed in him by the Court and the people of the Eastern District. He disgraced not only himself, but also the entire office he formerly served. His conduct cannot be treated lightly.
Renfer has burdened the Court, taken Fivehouse’s time, and cast a shadow of invalidity on the judicial process. These are serious harms that require corrective action.
Under the Court’s Local Civil Rules, Renfer had until December 30, 2025, more than a week after he claims to have discovered the issue, to file his response
Given Renfer’s unwillingness to be forthright with the Court, it does not credit his explanation about the involvement of the Civil Chief in preparing the Surreply. Since Renfer passed up multiple opportunities to be fully transparent with the Court, there is no reason to believe he was candid with the Civil Chief about the circumstances that led to the fake quotes and misstatements appearing in the Response Brief. Even so, he would still be responsible for the Surreply’s contents as he drafted it and filed it with the Court.
It is, at this time, foreseeable that generative AI tools will provide fabricated legal authority when asked to engage in legal analysis. Renfer cannot avoid the consequences of his failure to account for that reality
Courts across the country have found that similar conduct constitutes an abuse of the judicial process justifying sanctions.
The Show Cause Order said the Court may sanction Renfer under either Rule 11 or its inherent authority. Rule 11(b)(3) requires attorneys to certify that a filing’s “legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law[.]” Although Renfer’s filings contained fabricated quotations and misstatements of case holdings, the legal contentions in his filings were valid. While some courts have invoked Rule 11 to address similar circumstances, the Court concludes that its inherent authority is better suited to address Renfer’s conduct than Rule 11.
I honestly don't even know how else to summarize this one, sorry
His statement made no mention of the use of generative AI
His submission makes no mention of the use of generative AI in drafting
Neither that premise nor those words appear in the case cited
Page 1 of the order
ORDER: By submitting a brief containing fabricated quotations and misstatements of case holdings and failing to be forthright about his actions, Renfer abused both the judicial process and the trust placed in him by the Court and the people of the Eastern District of North Carolina. The Court publicly reprimands him for his misconduct. The Court also orders that the Clerk of Court submit this opinion for publication. And it orders the United States Attorney's Office to mail a copy of this Order to Renfer at his current or last known address. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 4/27/2026. (Chapman, R) (Entered: 04/28/2026)
Admissions and denials
Defendant claims there is another handbook