Appeal Court Had Authority To Sanction For This Behavior.
We now have the first California published appellate opinion disclosing the perils of using AI for preparing briefs and the consequences when fabricated authority is cited to the appellate court.
In Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., Case No. B331918 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 12, 2025) (published), appellant’s counsel used AI in writing his appellate briefs, resulting in briefs replete with fabricated authority and citations or case citations discussing some propositions advanced in the briefs even though those propositions were not in the cited cases (known as AI “hallucinations”). The appellate court sanctioned appellant’s counsel $10,000 for doing so, payable to the Court of Appeal clerk, and reported the problem to the State Bar. Because Respondent did not alert the Court about the hallucinations, it did not receive sanctions. Nor did Respondent receive appellate fees and costs because it did not submit a declaration itemizing fees/expenses incurred on appeal. There is a nice recitation of cases from other jurisdictions which discuss the dangers and consequences of using AI by but failing to check on the research it generates.