A motion for sanctions lodged personally against the attorney (as compared to the client) is something most attorneys hope to never encounter. When it does happen, some attorneys will treat it as nothing more than the cost of doing business in litigation — pay the fee award, absorb the lecture from the bench, and move on. But a sanctions order is not just a line item. It is a court’s written finding, often detailed and specific, that a lawyer did something wrong. That finding doesn’t disappear when the case settles or the appeal ends. Not only can it have reputational consequences, it can become Exhibit A in a State Bar of Texas grievance, which could be filed by opposing counsel, by the client, by the judge, or, in some cases, opened by the Bar itself with no outside complainant at all.
This article walks through how the two systems connect, which disciplinary rules a sanctions order tends to implicate, what actual reported decisions show about how these disputes play out, and what to do the moment a sanctions motion lands on your desk.
1. Sanctions and Grievances Are Separate Systems — Until They Aren’t
Texas lawyers who litigate are already familiar with the main sources of judicial sanctions: Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 (pleadings that are groundless and brought in bad faith or for harassment), Chapter 10 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code (certifications that legal contentions are warranted and factual allegations have evidentiary support), and a court’s inherent authority to sanction abuse of the judicial process even where no rule or statute squarely applies. The Texas Supreme Court’s sanctions jurisprudence requires a direct nexus between the sanctioned conduct and the sanction imposed, evidence supporting the fees or penalty awarded, and consideration of lesser sanctions before the “death penalty” of striking pleadings or dismissing claims. For example, in Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007), the Court affirmed a Chapter 10 violation but reversed a $50,000 sanction against the attorney personally because the trial court didn’t adequately justify the amount.
None of the judicial sanctions process happens inside the State Bar’s disciplinary system, and a sanctions order does not automatically trigger discipline. Texas has a “compulsory discipline” track, but it applies only to criminal convictions and deferred adjudications. Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure (“TRDP”) 8.04. Civil sanctions orders do not have a similar automatic effect.
But the two systems share a doorway. A grievance may be filed by “any other person who has a cognizable individual interest in or connection to the legal matter” (usually the opposing party or opposing counsel). TRDP 1.06(G). Separately, the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel (“CDC”) can open an investigation on its own, “independent of the filing of a” grievance, once it becomes aware of potential misconduct, including through a published sanctions opinion or a judge’s referral. TRDP 5.02. Whichever route it takes, the complaint still has to clear the same threshold as any other grievance: “Just Cause,” defined as cause that would “induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an attorney . . . has committed an act or acts of Professional Misconduct requiring that a Sanction be imposed . . . .” TRDP 1.06(Z); see TRDP 2.12. A detailed judicial sanctions order, especially one with the court’s own findings on bad faith, dishonesty, or abuse of process already in writing, can make that Just Cause showing far easier to build than a typical he-said/she-said grievance. That is the real risk sanctions create: not automatic liability, but a ready-made evidentiary record for someone else’s case against you.
2. Which Disciplinary Rules a Sanctions Order Tends to Implicate
The conduct that draws court sanctions overlaps heavily with several Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (“TDRPC”), and notably, the Texas numbering tracks the ABA Model Rules closely enough that out-of-state authority and ABA guidance are directly useful in analyzing exposure:
- Rule 3.01 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions) — prohibits bringing or defending a proceeding, or asserting an issue, unless there is a basis in law and fact that is not frivolous. This is the ethics-rule cousin of Rule 13 and Chapter 10’s “groundless” and “evidentiary support” standards.
- Rule 3.03 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) — prohibits knowingly making false statements of fact or law to a court, or offering evidence the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresenting the record, mischaracterizing authority, or citing to non-existent cases falls squarely here.
- Rule 3.04 (Fairness in Adjudicatory Proceedings) — prohibits obstructing another party’s access to evidence, making frivolous discovery requests, and using tactics whose only purpose is delay or harassment. This is the rule most often mirrored in discovery-abuse sanctions.
- Rule 8.04(a)(3) (Misconduct — Dishonesty) — prohibits “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” A sanctions finding that a lawyer misrepresented facts to the court, fabricated citations, or concealed evidence maps directly onto this subsection.
- Rule 8.04(a)(4) (Misconduct — Obstruction of Justice) — a separate, independent basis where the sanctionable conduct interfered with the administration of justice, apart from any dishonesty finding.
- Rule 8.04(a)(12) (Misconduct — Violating Other Laws Governing the Profession) — a catch-all that can pull a civil sanctions statute (like Chapter 10) into the disciplinary rules themselves.
One useful difference between the generally similar Texas and ABA rules on these issues: Texas Rule 8.03 (Reporting Professional Misconduct) is narrower than its ABA counterpart, Model Rule 8.3. Both require reporting only misconduct that raises a “substantial question” about a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness, but Texas’s rule and comments give the reporting lawyer more room for judgment, and it is expressly limited by the confidentiality protections of Rule 1.05. In practice, that means opposing counsel who obtained your sanctions order is not automatically obligated to file a grievance against you, but nothing stops them, the client, the judge, or the CDC acting on their own from doing so anyway, and many do.
3. Sanctions Are Making Headlines Again – AI-generated fake citations
The law profession’s uptick in the use of generative artificial intelligence is pushing sanctions-to-grievance exposure back into the spotlight for Texas lawyers. Several examples in recent reported decisions highlight this trend.
Texas-licensed attorney Rafael Ramirez was assessed a personal sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 by a federal magistrate judge in the Southern District of Indiana after filing briefs containing fabricated case citations generated by AI—including a wholly nonexistent case. The judge didn’t stop at the monetary sanction: he referred the matter to the chief judge for consideration of additional discipline. Luckily for Mr. Ramirez, the federal district judge ultimately reduced the fine to $6,000 after considering Mr. Ramirez’s efforts to educate himself on the responsible use of AI and the collateral consequences Mr. Ramirez faced.
However, had the chief judge imposed additional discipline on Mr. Ramirez, that likely would have triggered a self-reporting obligation to the CDC. TDRPC 8.03(f) requires a lawyer who has been disciplined by a federal court to notify the chief disciplinary counsel within 30 days of the date of the order or judgment. “Discipline” by a federal court means a public reprimand, suspension, or disbarment. Accordingly, if Mr. Ramirez had received additional discipline from the chief judge that consisted of a public reprimand, suspension, or disbarment, then Mr. Ramirez would have been required to report that discipline to the chief disciplinary counsel of the state bar within 30 days. Upon receipt of that report, the CDC could have then initiated a disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Ramirez.
Texas state and federal courts have seen a string of similar rulings, with courts imposing sanctions even where the attorney claimed not to have known AI was used to draft the filing. Courts have been unwilling to credit that defense, given the independent duty to verify citations before filing. TLI’s July 9, 2026 “Top Tip” covered the hallucination issue in more depth.
Two 2026 cases show the same dynamic playing out.
In Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 168 F.4th 231 (5th Cir. 2026), the Fifth Circuit sanctioned attorney Heather Hersh $2,500 under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) and the court’s inherent power. After reading her reply brief, the Fifth Circuit suspected substantial AI use due to myriad misrepresented or fabricated citations, and it issued a show-cause order. The Fifth Circuit found her response to the show-cause order evasive and misleading, and expressly invoked Texas Disciplinary Rules 3.01, 3.03(a)(1), and 8.04(a)(3) alongside its inherent authority, and noted that a lesser sanction likely would have been imposed had Hersh been forthcoming from the start.
In Holmes v. University of Texas at Austin, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22932 (W.D. Tex. 2026), a federal judge denied a motion for reconsideration that cited a nonexistent case, among other mischaracterizations of the record, and ordered plaintiff’s counsel, attorney Gary Bledsoe, to show cause in writing (and appear in person at a hearing) for why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11 and Texas Disciplinary Rule 3.03(a)(1).
Both orders underscore that courts are trending towards treating unverified AI citations as sanctionable and in violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, regardless of whether the lawyer admits to using AI at all.
4. Courts will refer attorneys to the State Bar
Courts imposing sanctions can and do refer sanctioned lawyers to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office of the State Bar of Texas for investigation and possible state bar disciplinary action arising from the sanctioned conduct.
McIntyre v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 169 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied), shows how a federal judge’s on-the-record skepticism can become the foundation for a state bar suspension. After two federal bankruptcy judges separately questioned attorney Frank McIntyre’s candor—one finding his filings “legally false,” the other warning that he “may have submitted false oaths to the court”—the Commission for Lawyer Discipline pursued McIntyre for violations of Rules 1.01(a), 1.03(b), 3.03(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(3). The trial court imposed a partially probated eighteen-month suspension plus $21,347.42 in attorney’s fees as an ancillary sanction, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Laza v. City of Palestine, No. 06-18-00051-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 8566 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 16, 2022), spells out the referral mechanics in unusual detail. After an attorney ignored a prior admonishment and continued making baseless, disrespectful accusations against the trial judge, the administrative judge, and the court of appeals itself, the court of appeals found the attorney violated TDRPC 8.02(a) (“A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory official or public legal officer, …”) and imposed $3,600 in monetary sanctions. The court of appeals also held that the conduct raised “a substantial question about [the attorney’s] honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer” under Canon 3D(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. The court then ordered its clerk to forward the admonishment order, the show-cause order, and the sanctions order directly to the Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar of Texas for investigation.
In re Possible Discipline of Ray, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117021 (N.D. Tex. 2019), aff’d, In re Ray, 951 F.3d 650 (5th Cir. 2020), is the highest-stakes example in this line of cases. After finding that attorney Ryan Ray withheld medical records and elicited false testimony that fueled a fraudulent judgment, ultimately costing the opposing party more than $340,000 in fees and underlying a $366,686.97 sanctions motion, the district court disbarred Ray from practice in the Northern District of Texas and ordered its orders forwarded to the State Bar of Texas “for consideration of possible action.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that disbarment was warranted given the scale of the financial and judicial-resource harm Ray’s misconduct caused.
5. Risk Management: What to Do When a Sanctions Motion Lands on Your Desk
- Report it to your carrier early — before the order, not after the grievance. Many professional liability policies, including TLI’s, provide grievance defense coverage, but the earlier you report a developing sanctions dispute, the more options you and your carrier have. Don’t wait for a bar complaint to make the call; see TLI’s own “Grievance Defense Coverage with your TLI Policy” for how that coverage works.
- Build (and keep) your good-faith record as you go, not after the fact. Under Texas Supreme Court authority, including Low v. Henry, courts look for evidence of a reasonable pre-filing inquiry. Contemporaneous notes on your factual investigation and legal research (including how you verified any AI-assisted research or drafting) are exactly what you’ll want later, both to defend the sanctions motion and, if it comes to that, to answer a grievance.
- Treat AI-assisted work product as requiring independent verification, every time. Pull and read every cited case yourself before it goes into a filing. Do not use AI to check AI. Verify the citations with trusted sources, like traditional legal research platforms. If you cannot find the case, you cannot use it. Courts are imposing sanctions even where the lawyer says they didn’t know AI was involved.
- Don’t let the sanctions fight generate new misconduct. Missed deadlines, discovery gamesmanship, or intemperate filings made in the heat of a sanctions dispute tend to compound the record against you rather than help your defense.
- Consider separate counsel for the sanctions proceeding itself, particularly once the possibility of a personal (rather than client) sanction, or a referral, is on the table—the interests of you and your client can diverge quickly at that point.
- Remember the order has a life beyond this case. A sanctions finding can resurface in a later grievance, in a legal malpractice suit by your own client, in pro hac vice or reciprocal-discipline proceedings in other states, and in bar applications you or associates at your firm may file elsewhere.
Bottom Line
A sanctions order and a disciplinary complaint are legally distinct, but they are not unrelated. The court’s findings can hand a would-be complainant, or the Chief Disciplinary Counsel acting on its own initiative, the Just Cause showing that grievances usually take much longer to build. Treat every sanctions motion as a potential two-front fight from day one: defend the motion on its merits and build the record you’d want if that same conduct ever became the subject of a grievance.
Questions about how your TLI coverage responds to a sanctions dispute or grievance? Contact TLI at info@tlie.org—that’s what we’re here for.