Another Published Opinion In This Area—Be A Human, Read, Check, And Verify AI Research. In re the Domestic Partnership of Campos & Munoz, Case No. D085584 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 5, 2026) (published) is post-worthy because it builds on prior cases and imposed $5,000 in appeal sanctions, payable to the appellate clerk, for filing […]
$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To Appellate Clerk In Howell Management Services, LLC v. Rota, Case No. D086055 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 15, 2025) (unpublished), the 4/1 DCA recently found appellant filed a frivolous appeal involving three orders, with AI hallucinations also found in the appellant’s appellate briefing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
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 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.
