Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Appeal Sanctions, Paralegal Time, Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Court’s Refusal To Award Contractual Fees For Paralegal Work Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Paralegal Time, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Also, Attorney Fee’s Reductions Were Affirmed And Appellant Was Ordered to Pay Minimal Appeal Sanctions For AI Hallucinations In Appellate Briefing. The memorable thing about this opinion, Del Biaggio v. Bansen, Case No. A174647 (1st Dist., Div. 4 July 10, 2026) (published), is what it determined in compensating paralegal work under a contractual fees clause […]

Appeal Sanctions, Ethics, Sanctions, SLAPP: 1/4 DCA Affirms $41,580 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Self-Represented Appellant For Previous Appeal, Imposes $10,000 In Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal, And Remands To Lower Court For Award Against Appellant For Fees Incurred By Respondent On Latest Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

In A Masterclass Of What Not To Do On Appeal, Self-Represented Appellant Challenged A Fee Award Ordered Against Him By Rehashing Issues Determined Previously On Appeal, Raising Issues Not Previously Raised, Attacking The Character Of Respondent And His Counsel, And Insulting Court Staff And Judicial Officers. In a case that has dragged on in excess

Appeal Sanctions: Appellate Court Sanctions Appellants’ Attorney For Filing A False Statement Of Settlement

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Also, Respondents Can Get OSC Response Fees And Costs On The Issue. All practitioners should get attuned to the fact that appellate courts are imposing sanctions more frequently for CRC infractions, including referencing AI hallucinations and filing false paperwork.  In Horton v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. D085379 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 29,

Appeal Sanctions: 4/1 DCA Levies Sanctions For A Frivolous Appeal Of Three Orders, Based Partially On A1 Hallucinations Being Referenced

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

$59,236 Payable To Respondent; $15,000 Payable To Appellate Clerk In Howell Management Services, LLC v. Rota, Case No. D086055 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 15, 2025) (unpublished), the 4/1 DCA recently found appellant filed a frivolous appeal involving three orders, with AI hallucinations also found in the appellant’s appellate briefing (an unreasonable CRC violation).  The

Appeal Sanctions:  $6,000 In Appeal Sanctions Payable To The Appeals Court Clerk Was The Order For Filing A Frivolous Appeal Based On Directly Contradicting A Different Position Taken Before The Trial Court

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Sanctions Denied To Respondent; However, Appellate Court Directed That The Lower Court Award Full Appellate Fees On Remand, As Long As They Are Reasonable. Orange County Superior Court Judge Bancroft, sitting by assignment, has authored a couple of decisions on sanctions, the latest being Meena v. Schroeder, Case No. G063849 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec.

Appeal Sanctions: Attorney Guilty Of Using AI Hallucinations Had His AOB Stricken, Was Sanctioned $7,500 Payable To The Appeals Court, And Allowed To File A New, Corrected AOB Within 10 Days

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Dismissal Of The Appeal For This Transgression Was Too Harsh. We have previously blogged on Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 114 Cal.App.5th 426, 445 and Schlichter v. Kennedy, Case No. E083744 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 17, 2025 (also aligned with People v. Alvarez, 114 Cal.App.5th 1115), where appellate courts sanctioned attorneys for

Appeal Sanctions:  AI Errors Continue To Generate Appellate Sanctions

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

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

Scroll to Top