End Of The Order Makes Clear That The Appellate Division Will Report Imposition Of Sanctions On This Issue To The California State Bar.
In Southland Homes & Real Estate and Investment, LLC v. Lam, Case No. 30-2026-01569207 (Orange County Super. Ct., App. Div. modified opinion Aug. 5, 2026; posted Sept. 10, 2026) (published), Presiding Judge Kimberly A. Knill, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, issued a published order on AI hallucinations. Plaintiff’s attorneys, a supervising attorney and an associate attorney, filed a joint brief containing non-existent cases or cases with wrong citations/citations not supporting the propositions advanced to the Appellate Division. Although both attorneys admitted that fabricated citations were in the brief, the supervising attorney argued he did not have to verify the contents of the brief because he had no reason to believe that the associate presented fabrications, an argument soundly rejected by the Appellate Division. Associate attorney argued that he was in a rush given the exigent nature of the underlying petition, but this excuse was found unavailing. There is a scholarly discussion of California court rules and cases relating to AI hallucinations, which again echo the message to not blindly rely on AI and to carefully check all citations for accuracy/correct content. In the end, supervising attorney was sanctioned $2,500 and the associate was sanctioned $1,500, payable to the Court and reported to the State Bar. The end of the order offers the stark warning that imposition of such sanctions will be reported to the Bar.