When you hire a freelance lawyer, you’re trusting them with your reputation—and sometimes with your client’s future. But as a recent federal case shows, that trust can backfire if you don’t properly vet and supervise their work. In Dehghani v. Castro, a freelance lawyer hired through a company called LAWCLERK drafted a brief using AI-generated research that included citations to cases that didn’t exist, mismatched citations, and authorities that failed to support the arguments. The result? Sanctions against the hiring attorney—not the freelancer.
The lesson here isn’t groundbreaking: Most lawyers already know that AI can make up cases out of thin air, and lawyers have always been expected to double-check citations. Yet this case is a reminder that even the basics—confirming that cases exist, shepardizing, and ensuring authorities actually support the point—can’t be skipped. Relying blindly on AI is the same as filing a brief in court without proofreading: you might save time in the short run, but the consequences can be costly and embarrassing.
The bigger takeaway? No matter who drafts the work—an associate, a freelancer, or your AI robot —the hiring lawyer is always the one on the hook. As Montage Legal Group’s owners have written in articles and discussed in presentations, the duty of competence is a non-delegable duty. That means you can (and should) bring in experienced, high-level freelance attorneys to support your practice, but you must supervise, review, and approve all work before it leaves your desk. The good news: with the right freelance lawyer and the right oversight, you can scale your practice confidently—without risking a citation to a case that exists only in the Matrix.
Case Summary — Dehghani v. Castro, No. 2:25-cv-00052-MIS-DLM
On January 16, 2025, Petitioner Azadeh Dehghani, represented by attorney Felipe D.J. Millan, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her detention and removal from the United States. The matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez.
In late February, Judge Martinez issued an Order to Show Cause questioning whether the court retained jurisdiction given Dehghani’s removal. In her March 7, 2025 response, Petitioner cited numerous cases that opposing counsel and the court could not locate. On March 11, Judge Martinez ordered Millan to provide PDF copies of each case or appear in person to explain.
Millan responded by admitting he had outsourced the drafting of the brief to freelance attorney Janelle Lewis via LAWCLERK, without reviewing or verifying the citations. He acknowledged that some of the cases cited did not exist, others did not match their citations, and many failed to support the propositions stated. LAWCLERK informed Millan that per policy, all work product had been destroyed, leaving no way to verify the sources.
Judge Martinez issued a second Order to Show Cause on March 14, setting an in-person hearing to address both dismissal of the petition and potential sanctions. After the hearing, on April 2, 2025, Judge Martinez found that Millan’s conduct violated Rule 11(b) and imposed the following sanctions:
- $1,500 fine to the court
- Forwarding the sanctions order to LAWCLERK
- Completion of a one-hour CLE on legal ethics in writing or use of AI in legal writing
- Self-reporting to the New Mexico and Texas bar disciplinary boards with a copy of the order
- Reporting the LAWCLERK attorney to the New York bar disciplinary board with a copy of the order
Millan objected only to the self-reporting requirement, filing Objections/Appeal on April 16, 2025, and later a Motion to Stay Sanctions Pending Appeal on May 5, 2025.
Advice to Law Firms
The takeaway from this case is clear: law firms must be diligent when selecting and supervising freelance lawyers. Best practices dictate working only with highly skilled, vetted contract attorneys who have the specific expertise needed to competently perform the work. This means verifying credentials, checking references, and ensuring they have a proven track record in the relevant practice area.
Even after hiring, the firm must exercise independent, professional judgment over every piece of work the temporary attorney produces. Drafts should be thoroughly reviewed, revised where necessary, and fully ratified before submission to a court or client. The ethical duty of competence under the Rules of Professional Conduct is nondelegable—a hiring firm cannot simply shift that responsibility to a freelancer. Ultimately, every document, brief, and motion that leaves the firm carries the firm’s name and reputation. Ensuring it meets the highest standards is not optional—it’s an ethical obligation.
This is why for the past 17 years, Montage Legal Group has focused on working exclusively with experienced freelance attorneys—many of whom are former BigLaw lawyers and graduates of top law schools. By connecting firms with proven, vetted attorneys, Montage helps ensure that freelance support strengthens a firm’s practice rather than creating new risks.
But credentials are not always enough. Law is a personality-driven profession, and even the most impressive résumé doesn’t guarantee that a freelance lawyer will be the right fit for your firm. Because this is critically important client work, hiring attorneys should proceed cautiously—ideally starting with a smaller project to evaluate both quality and compatibility. If that isn’t possible, it’s essential to set internal deadlines that allow time to thoroughly review, edit, and ratify the work before it’s filed.
Ultimately, the key to successful use of freelance attorneys is pairing careful selection with thoughtful oversight—ensuring that outside support enhances your firm’s work product and reputation, rather than putting it at risk.
The post Dehghani v. Castro: What Not to Do When Working with Freelance Lawyers (and How to Do It Right) appeared first on Montage Legal Group.