Bunce v. Rajan: Pennsylvania Court Sanctions Attorney $5,000 and Mandates AI Ethics CLE for Repeat AI-Citation Violations | Advocate Prakhar

Case at a Glance

Background

Mark Bunce brought litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. At the conclusion of the underlying case, Bunce sought reasonable travel costs for a cancelled deposition. Attorney Rajan — representing the opposing side — responded with an omnibus motion seeking sanctions against Bunce and objecting to the travel costs. Bunce’s reply highlighted that Rajan had previously been sanctioned for using fabricated cases in this same litigation, and that his omnibus motion again cited a made-up case and other authorities that did not support his propositions. Rajan had already paid over $73,000 in sanctions in this case before this latest violation. The court ordered Rajan to show cause and held a hearing on April 13, 2026.

The AI Issue

Rajan’s omnibus motion contained at least one fabricated case citation — and other citations that did not support the propositions for which they were cited. This was his second AI-citation violation in the same case. At the hearing, Rajan pleaded for leniency, asking for “a modest deterrent penalty of $950” given his cumulative prior sanctions of over $73,000. The court was unimpressed: prior sanctions do not automatically reduce the severity of a new violation. The court also found it “patently unreasonable” for Rajan to file an omnibus motion with erroneous citations, particularly given that the court had a standing AI order requiring verification before any AI-assisted citations could be filed.

What the Court Decided

• Rajan violated Rule 11(b)(2) again by submitting a filing with at least one fabricated citation — his conduct was objectively unreasonable [second Rule 11 violation].
• Prior sanctions exceeding $73,000 do not justify a lower penalty for new violations — the repeat nature of the conduct actually supports equal or higher sanctions [no leniency for cumulative offences].
• A $5,000 monetary penalty payable to the Clerk of Court was imposed [financial sanction].
• Rajan must complete additional CLE courses specifically covering artificial intelligence and legal ethics [educational sanction — novel remedy].
• Rajan must provide proof of the relevant CLEs he has already taken [compliance verification].

“The Court remains appalled by Mr. Rajan’s improper conduct. Rule 11 makes clear that [attorneys] must conduct a reasonable inquiry into the law and facts before signing pleadings, written motions, and other documents.”

— United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Bunce v. Rajan, April 20, 2026

The India Angle

Indian Law Equivalent

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) as a professional requirement is actively being debated in India. The Bar Council of India has discussed mandatory CLE for advocates since 2009, when it introduced a Continuing Legal Education Regulation framework. Several State Bar Councils have implemented voluntary CLE programs. The Bunce v. Rajan ruling is significant because it demonstrates that courts — not just bar councils — can impose CLE as a judicial remedy for professional misconduct. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Indian courts have broad powers to impose conditions on advocates who have demonstrated misconduct — a court-ordered CLE requirement on AI ethics would be within this power.

Bar Council Rules

Bar Council of India Rule 1(iii) under Chapter I, Part VI requires advocates to maintain proper records of practice. The CLE requirement in Rajan goes beyond financial deterrence to address the root cause: the advocate’s competence gap regarding AI. This aligns with what BCI Rule 15 requires — fair and competent conduct — and with the broader principle under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act that professional competence is a condition of practice.

Practical Advice for Indian Advocates

• Proactively complete AI and legal ethics CLE now — before it is court-ordered. Several Indian law schools and legal technology organisations now offer AI in legal practice courses that provide verifiable completion certificates.
• Maintaining a log of AI-related CLE you have completed demonstrates good faith to any court that later questions your AI use practices — have it ready to produce.
• Prior sanctions for the same conduct in the same case do not buy leniency — they are evidence of a pattern that courts will treat as aggravating, not mitigating.

Quick Takeaways

• Courts can now order AI-specific CLE as a judicial remedy — education, not just fines.
• Prior sanctions for the same conduct do not earn future leniency — they signal a pattern.
• Cumulative sanctions exceeding $73,000 in one case shows how quickly AI misconduct costs compound.

Deep Dive: CLE as a Judicial Remedy — The Educational Turn in AI Sanctions

The Bunce v. Rajan sanctions order represents a meaningful evolution in how courts are thinking about AI misconduct remedies. Financial sanctions address the immediate harm — paying the opposing party’s costs or deterring future bad behaviour with a monetary penalty. But if an attorney keeps committing the same violation, financial deterrence alone is clearly insufficient. Rajan had paid over $73,000 in sanctions in this single case before the April 2026 violation. The money was not changing the behaviour.

The CLE requirement attempts a different intervention: rather than simply penalising Rajan for what he did not know (or chose to ignore), the court requires him to actually learn it. The order specifies CLE courses “pertaining to artificial intelligence and legal ethics” — not general practice management, not case management technology, but the specific intersection of AI use and professional responsibility. This is notable because most state bar CLE programs in the US did not have specific AI and legal ethics courses until 2024-2025, when the wave of hallucination cases created demand. By ordering proof of CLE already taken — and requiring additional courses — the court is demanding ongoing education, not a one-time remediation.

Rajan’s plea for a “modest deterrent penalty of $950” — because of his cumulative $73,000+ in prior sanctions — illustrates a cognitive trap that practitioners should avoid. The argument is: I have already paid so much, adding more will not deter me further, so reduce the new sanction. But courts consistently reject this reasoning. Prior sanctions for similar conduct are not a bank account from which future violations can draw credit. They are evidence of a failure to learn from prior consequences — which, if anything, makes the new violation more culpable. The court’s response in Rajan was explicit: the prior sanctions history supports maintaining or increasing, not decreasing, the new penalty.

For the Bar Council of India, the CLE remedy in Rajan offers a model for how disciplinary proceedings could be structured. Currently, BCI disciplinary proceedings lead primarily to censure, suspension, or removal from the roll — there is no intermediate remedy requiring an advocate to complete specific training. A court-ordered or BCI-ordered CLE requirement on AI and professional ethics would fill this gap, allowing proportionate responses to first-time or moderate AI misconduct violations without the nuclear option of suspension.