An Orange County Appeals Court Sanctions a Supervising Lawyer Who Says He Reviewed a Petition's Arguments but Not Its Citations

The appellate division of the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange filed an opinion on August 4, 2026 in an unlawful detainer appeal, and the next day modified it and renamed it an order. It is certified for publication. It opens on "an increasingly familiar problem: legal filings supported by authorities existing only in the fertile imagination of generative artificial intelligence (AI)." Two lawyers were sanctioned: the one who signed the petition, and the one listed on its front page as counsel of record. Parts of the order follow, not the whole.

Four Cited Cases

On May 15, 2026 a law office filed a petition for the defendant in the appeal. One lawyer was listed on its front page as counsel of record, and another signed it. The petition's table of authorities "listed four suspicious cases that appeared to have been fabricated" by generative AI, the court says.

One of them "does not exist." A second is a real case, but "the correct page cite is 1074, not 1030." A third "does not exist; the citation leads to" a different case, which "does not stand for the proposition asserted in the petition." The fourth "is also an existing case," cited for a proposition it does not stand for, with no pinpoint cite. On May 27 the court ordered both lawyers to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on them.

Two Answers

The lawyer who signed the petition admitted "using AI tools" to assist with drafting and legal research. He accepted responsibility for breaching one rule of court, and contended that he had not breached others because he did not intend to mislead the court or knowingly present false legal authority. He put his failure to verify the authorities down to "significant time constraints" in an emergency petition, and acknowledged that he "improperly relied on AI tools instead of using more traditional legal research databases" and that his time constraints were not an excuse. He told the court he had now completed an AI ethics course through the State Bar.

The other lawyer, the supervising attorney, said he did not draft or sign the petition, and that he "reviewed the petition's contents, arguments, and grammar but not the citations." He argued that a supervising attorney "should reasonably be permitted to rely on his associates to draft briefs, verify citations, and comply with their ethical duties and professional responsibilities." After learning of the citations, he said, he implemented a written policy on AI and revoked "all use of AI in any firm matter."

What the Court Decided

To the argument that his failure to verify each case cited in the petition was reasonable as a supervising attorney, the court answers, "Not so." He was listed on the petition as counsel of record. The court quotes the State Bar's guidance that "a lawyer must review all outputs produced using AI tools for accuracy, including but not limited to analysis and citations to authority before submission to the court." And it says that "reviewing contents and arguments in a brief includes ensuring case law upon which counsel asks the court to rely is accurate."

He had also said he had no reason to believe the other lawyer would use AI. The court calls the misuse of AI by attorneys "well-publicized," and says that when the petition was filed, "AI-generated legal work was no longer a novel concern; it was common knowledge."

The signing lawyer's argument that he should not be sanctioned because he did not act knowingly is "unavailing," the court says. "His blind reliance on generative AI supports the inference he knowingly and unreasonably violated the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct." And "Citation to even one fake case would be grounds for sanctions, whether intending to deceive the court or not."

It imposed sanctions of $2,500 on the supervising attorney, who it says "offers no meaningful acceptance of responsibility," and $1,500 on the lawyer who signed, payable to the clerk of the court. The clerk is directed to serve a copy of the order on the State Bar, and both lawyers are ordered to report the sanctions to the State Bar personally.

In a firm where one lawyer drafts and another is named on the filing, who checks the authorities, and where is that check written down?