{"id":92965,"date":"2025-09-25T14:58:45","date_gmt":"2025-09-25T19:58:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mcguirewoods.com\/?post_type=insight&p=92965"},"modified":"2025-09-25T14:58:47","modified_gmt":"2025-09-25T19:58:47","slug":"california-appellate-court-issues-10k-sanctions-in-states-first-published-opinion-on-ai-hallucinated-case-citations","status":"publish","type":"insight","link":"https:\/\/www.mcguirewoods.com\/client-resources\/alerts\/2025\/9\/california-appellate-court-issues-10k-sanctions-in-states-first-published-opinion-on-ai-hallucinated-case-citations\/","title":{"rendered":"California Appellate Court Issues $10K Sanctions in State\u2019s First Published Opinion on AI-Hallucinated Case Citations"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On Sept. 12, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued California\u2019s first published opinion<\/a> addressing AI \u201challucinations\u201d in court filings. In Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.<\/em>, the court affirmed summary judgment for the respondent and sanctioned appellant\u2019s counsel $10,000 for filing appellate briefs \u201creplete\u201d with fabricated quotations and citations generated by AI tools. The court held that relying on nonexistent authorities violates duties of candor and competence, and renders an appeal frivolous under California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B). The court also ordered service of the opinion on the client and referred appellant\u2019s counsel to the State Bar of California. The court declined to award attorneys\u2019 fees, costs or sanctions payable to respondent, in part because respondent\u2019s counsel did not alert the court to the fabricated citations and appeared unaware of them until the court issued an order to show cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court published the opinion \u201cas a warning,\u201d emphasizing that attorneys must personally read and verify every cited authority. The decision underscores a growing trend of courts imposing sanctions for filed briefs that contain fabricated, AI-generated legal authority. Many courts also are adopting protocols<\/a> in standing orders governing AI disclosure and use. Courts address AI misuse in various ways. With the proliferation of AI in the legal field, counsel should expect an increased willingness by courts to issue sanctions for filings that rely on unverified AI outputs, with consequences that may include monetary penalties, state bar discipline, reputational harm and case dismissals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To comply with the California Rules of Court and the California Rules of Professional Conduct, and to avoid the risks and consequences of AI misuse, counsel should:<\/p>\n\n\n\n