Reported / Citable
Background
Lawyers for a litigant filed an appellate petition containing nonexistent decisions and fabricated legal propositions. In responding to the court’s order to show cause, one lawyer disclaimed responsibility for checking another lawyer’s work, while the lawyer who prepared it admitted using ChatGPT and Google Gemini under time pressure without verifying the results.
The court considered counsel’s certification duties when presenting papers, professional-conduct rules, and the growing body of California decisions addressing hallucinated legal authorities.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate division held both attorneys responsible. A lawyer who signs and files a paper must conduct a reasonable inquiry and cannot shift the duty of accuracy to a colleague. Blind reliance on general-purpose generative-AI tools, particularly after the risk of invented citations became widely known, was knowing and unreasonable conduct.
The court imposed $2,500 against the filing attorney and $1,500 against the lawyer who generated the material. It ordered payment to the court, directed service of the sanctions order on the State Bar, and required both lawyers to report the sanctions personally.
Key Takeaways
- Every cited authority and quoted proposition produced with AI must be checked against a reliable legal source.
- Signing or filing a document carries an independent verification duty.
- Lack of intent to deceive does not excuse fictitious citations.
- AI-related sanctions can include monetary penalties and mandatory State Bar reporting.
Why It Matters
This is a direct operational warning for California practitioners: generative AI may assist drafting, but it cannot serve as the final research authority. Firms should require citation verification, preserve review responsibility, and train lawyers that deadline pressure does not relax professional duties.