Trending In California Appellate Cases … Check Reliance On AI Research.
There are studies and other empirical feedback which show attorneys are increasingly relying on AI research and feedback for case analysis. That is fine, but the message from various courts throughout the nation (which you can access over the Internet) and California appellate cases (which we have posted before and now) make it clear attorneys must verify that AI research is correct—otherwise, you can probably be sanctioned!
Schlichter v. Kennedy, Case No. E083744 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 17, 2025) (published) is yet another decision showing how AI reliance must be checked for accuracy. The lesson here is what while counsel relying on AI was somewhat contrite, counsel did not fall on the sword enough, even though sword probably needed to have been fallen more. There were AI hallucinations, with counsel not fully embracing them in its client’s pleadings before the court. Counsel did not anticipate receiving sanctions of $1,750 from the appellate court and being reported to the State Bar, which did happen in this case. This decision cites earlier decisions guiding practitioners on how to check on AI reliance, with sanctions oft being awarded.