Sanctions for frivolous writ

 4/3 imposes $5K in sanctions for a frivolous writ petition here.

When attorneys make misleading statements to courts or fail to promptly update courts when new facts emerge that are relevant to a matter under consideration, courts unnecessarily expend resources assessing issues under false premises. And only when counsel’s zealous advocacy is exercised consistent with counsel’s duty of candor to the court can the judicial system achieve its goal of ascertaining the truth.

... 

The petition ... was plainly frivolous when filed in light of the undisclosed information about the San Diego action. No court would issue extraordinary writ relief to remedy a trial conflict that no longer existed. No reasonable attorney would file a writ petition on this factual record, making the arguments that were made in the petition ....

[The MetNews article is C.A. Imposes $5,000 Sanction on Lawyer for Lack of Candor -- Attorney Sought Writ, Saying Dates of Two Trials—One Set for June 29 in Orange County, the Other for May 15 in San Diego Superior Court—Conflicted; Justices Not Told Earlier of Two Proceedings Had Been Moved to October; The DJ's article is Attorney sanctioned $5,000 over frivolous writ petition --California appellate court fined attorney $5,000 after finding he failed to disclose that a trial conflict cited in his writ petition had already been resolved.]

Published sanctions order

2/4 publishes an OSC order imposing $1,000 in sanctions here, which begins:

An adverse ruling is not evidence of judicial bias. And lawyers may not accuse a judge of bias without evidence. We publish this opinion as a warning to those who appear before the appellate bench. Challenges to the integrity of the hard-working, dedicated trial judges of this state must be based on evidence in the record, not the personal frustrations of counsel or parties. Members of the bar may not spew allegations of judicial bias merely because they disagree with a ruling. Counsel must not expect courts of appeal to allow such baseless outbursts.

(Watch the oral argument here (staring at 59'30"))

AI Sanctions (Illinois edition)

 Law360 reports Ill. Atty Sanctioned For AI Slop In Starbucks Bias Suit

• A unanimous Illinois appeals court sanctioned an attorney representing a former Starbucks employee in a workplace discrimination suit after determining that he submitted briefs using false citations and quotations hallucinated by artificial intelligence software.
• $15,000 fine within 30 days of the opinion's filing for the 10 false citations included in his documents.
• "AI-hallucinated citations are an increasingly persistent problem in courts nationwide," the panel said. "This indicates that the fines courts are imposing are not enough to deter improper AI use among attorneys. In fact, the prospect of sanctions in this case did not deter attorney Cole from submitting outdated statutory citations and disobeying this court's order to include pin cites in his response. Courts have no choice but to increase fines for AI-hallucinated citations until those fines have a significant deterrent effect."
• The panel added that it was considering additional nonmonetary sanctions, such as ordering Cole to provide a copy of the opinion to every judge working a case he participates in and a requirement to take continuing legal education classes related to proper AI usage.

No AI sanctions in 7th

Law360 has 7th Circ. Admonishes Atty Over 'Astonishing' Bogus Citations (see this opinion).

Bloomberg Law's article is Appeals Court Warns Bankruptcy Lawyer Over Alleged AI Misuse

Closer to home, Justice Raphael has (in the DJ)  Patchwork Resentencing -- California's piecemeal approach to resentencing reforms has created uneven opportunities for incarcerated defendants, raising questions about whether a more consistent "second look" system would better promote fairness and sentencing equity.

Law.com has Can Governor Newsom Appoint Himself as the Next SCOCA Justice? -- The appointment’s timing might be driven by the deadline to make this fall’s general election: before the cutoff the nominee has to stand for retention in November, but afterwards the governor can appoint someone who will not face the voters until the 2028 general election.

Law360 also has Circuit-By-Circuit Guide To The US Supreme Court's Term

Is anyone else seeing a yellow background for this nonpub?

More AI sanctions

 Here's a published opinion from 1/4 imposing sanctions ($1500) payable to the court for .... you know....

The DJ has Another attorney sanctioned for failing to check AI-generated work -- The 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that lawyers have a nondelegable duty to personally verify all legal authorities before submitting them to a court.

AI sanctions case against pro per

Today's AI sanctions case is from 4/2 in this unpub:

we find that Patterson has failed to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for relying on fabricated legal authority in her opening brief. Patterson “unreasonably violated rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) ‘by not support[ing] each point with citations to real (as opposed to fabricated) legal authority.’” (Schlichter, supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at p. 33; rule 8.276(a)(4).) We impose but suspend sanctions in the amount of $500.

No AI sanctions?

Law360 has Scientologists Want 'Ignored' Boies Schiller AI Errors Review

The Church of Scientology has asked the California Supreme Court to review an appellate order that didn't impose sanctions on Boies Schiller Flexner LLP for filing a brief containing artificial intelligence-generated citation errors in a harassment and retaliation suit pending against the church.

9th Cir. AI Sanctions & more

Bloomberg Law has Ninth Circuit Warns of AI Hallucinated Briefs in Sanctions Order

• The country’s largest federal appeals court sanctioned and suspended two attorneys who failed to disclose inaccuracies in their legal briefs came from generative AI hallucinations.
• The order imposes sanctions of $2,500 each against attorneys Mike Sethi and William Rounds of Orange County, Calif., who submitted briefs in an immigration case containing citations to opinions that didn’t exist and fabricated quotes from existing cases.
• The attorneys are also suspended from practicing before the Ninth Circuit for six months and they must send a copy of the order to their clients, opposing counsel, and presiding judge in all of their other cases.
• In February, the Fifth and Tenth circuits imposed similar sanctions against attorneys for using AI tools to draft briefs containing inaccuracies.

See Lnu v. Blanche (9th Cir. 6/3/26) No. 24-4790, 6/3/26

Law360 has 9th Circ. Suspends 2 Attys For 6 Months Over AI Hallucinations

The MetNews has Two O.C. Attorneys Suspended Relating to AI Fabricated Cites

Here's Prof. Martin's take. 

And Bloomberg also has Texas Lawyers Miscited Cases in Hair Length Policy, Judges Say -- Indicating that the 5th Circuit may be issuing sanctions.

Bloomberg Law also has California High Court Mulls Bid For More Electronic Recordings

Law360 has Court Reporter Shortage A 'Crisis,' Calif. Supreme Court Told

And Bloomberg Law has Revised Amicus Disclosure Rule Advanced by Judicial Committee

• The existing rule requires amicus curiae to disclose whether a person—other than the amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel—contributed money to fund the brief. The amendments approved Wednesday limit the disclosure requirement to pledges over $100.
• Another new provision requires an amicus that has existed for less than 12 months to state the date of its creation. The idea there is to identify organizations formed solely for purposes of influencing the litigation.
• The amendments also require amici to say more about their history, experience, and interest in the case, and how their perspective will help the court.

More AI sanctions

Law360 reports 7th Circ. Fines Deported Migrant's Atty For ChatGPT Misuse -- The Seventh Circuit has rejected a Mexican citizen's petition challenging an immigration court's removal order on the merits, while sanctioning his attorney $5,000 for filing two legal briefs "riddled with" fabricated quotes and case citations hallucinated by ChatGPT. Opinion here.

"Roughly half of the cases cited in the brief either do not exist or were falsely labeled as Seventh Circuit cases. Moreover, nearly every quotation in the brief could not be traced to a real opinion — hallmarks of AI hallucinations."

9th Cir. sanctions

Law360 has Akin Gump Owes Fees For Winebow's 'Self-Indulgent' Appeal about an award of attorneys fees as sanctions by the Ninth Circuit (OSC here; sanctions order here).

Law360 also has Calif. Panel Reverses Order For Citing Atty's Bogus Case Law about this unpub from the 5th District.

And Law360 has No Fed. Circ. Arguments In August Due To Building Work

Bloomberg Law has Inmate Who Filed Own Appeal Gets Supreme Court Review -- The US Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from a Texas inmate who represented himself in his initial appeal to the justices seeking transfer from prison to less restrictive custody.

Sanctions!

1/4 publishes an appellate sanctions opinion today against a pro per appellant. The cost of the frivolous appeal? $10,000 to the court of appeal, plus the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in responding to the appeal to the respondent.

MetNews article is Pro Per Must Pay $10,000 in Sanctions for Persistent Frivolity -- Opinion Says Case Involves Relentless Litigant With ‘Disturbing Lack of Candor’

9th Cir. OSC re sanctions

Law360 has Akin Must Explain Client's 'Self-Indulgent' 9th Circ. Appeal -- OSC issued

Accordingly, we order Winebow to show cause in writing, within 14 days after the filing of this memorandum disposition, why the court should not award attorneys’ fees to Franz Haas under Rule 38 because Winebow’s arguments were frivolous, including why any award of attorneys’ fees should not be imposed jointly and severally on Winebow and its counsel

AI Sanctions & Warnings! $10K in Oregon for bad AOB

Law360 has Ore. Atty Sanctioned $10K For Brief With Fabricated Citations

An Oregon appellate court has ordered an attorney to pay $10,000 for filing an opening brief containing fabricated case citations, quotations that "do not exist anywhere in Oregon case law" and other inaccuracies, according to an opinion. -- The case is Henry Doiban et al. v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, case number A181982, in the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon.

And here in California, don't miss Sheerer v. Panas published by 1/4:

As an in propria persona litigant, Panas submitted a respondent’s brief that attributes quotes to published cases in which no such quote appears and to cases that do not exist, and Panas’s nonmanufactured authorities do not discuss the topics for which they are cited. His brief also does not conform to the California Rules of Court (hereinafter Rules) regarding its contents, formatting, and directive to provide support for factual assertions with citations to the record. (See Rule 8.204.) In a declaration submitted to this court, Panas explained the fabrications were due to his use of a generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool to write the brief. ....

We partially publish this opinion to extend that warning to in propria persona litigants.

MetNews article is Pro Pers Are Held to Same Standard as Lawyers in Using AI

Law360 has Where Calif. State Courts Landed On Generative AI Use Rules. This article has a nifty interactive map showing what each county has done. 

Sanctions dodged

Counsel admonished, but not sanctioned (by 2/4) in this unpub: 

The court may impose sanctions, as relevant here, for taking a frivolous appeal or appealing solely to cause delay or for “committing any other unreasonable violation” of the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(1), (4).) It is undisputed that the Staubers’ opening brief violated rule 8.204(a)(1)(C), as it failed to “support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” Rather than proper citations to the clerk’s or reporter’s transcripts, the Staubers cited to lines in their Notice of Designation of Record, confusingly designated as “AA” and “RA.”’ The brief contained no explanation of this designation, and none of the citations included a specific page number.

We issued an order to show cause and the Staubers filed a response, explaining that they did not receive the clerk’s transcript in time to cite to it in their opening brief. The Staubers also did not seek to re-file their opening brief with correct citations once they received the record or after plaintiff raised an objection. While this conduct was certainly ill-advised and in clear violation of the rules, resulting in extra work for both the court and plaintiff’s counsel, we do not find it so egregious as to justify sanctions. (See Huschke v. Slater (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1153, 1162 [“not every violation of a procedural rule is properly sanctionable”].)

We agree with plaintiff that the Staubers violated the court rules and principles of appellate review by failing to provide “a summary of significant facts” in their opening brief. [] The Staubers’ response during oral argument that a more fulsome discussion of the evidence was not needed because they challenged the validity of the contracts is not well-taken. The Staubers raised multiple substantial evidence arguments on appeal and were therefore required to provide a complete summary of the relevant evidence. We admonish them, and their counsel, for failing to do so. However, we do not find that arguments raised were frivolous and we decline to impose sanctions under these circumstances.

"Dead data walking"

Justice Raphael's latest in the DJ is titled Dead data walking about how a certain statistic is repeated in "dozens of California opinions." But are courts using this statistic, and facts asserted in opinions generally, correctly? The specific statistic at issue (about how many armed robberies result in death) "originated in a 44-year old" SCOTUS opinion. But there are at least three major problems with this statistic and its use--the most obvious being that stats like this change over time.

the use of this statistic can provoke thoughts about reliance upon empirical data in appellate cases. When an appellate court cites a statistic in a published opinion, that statistic becomes fair game for lawyers and judges to repeat indefinitely. Challenging such a statistic takes work and requires extra-record analysis, which may be impermissible or methodologically unreliable. Law professor Allison Orr Larsen has written on the general subject. In Factual Precedents, 162 U.Penn.L.Rev. 59 (2013), she discussed situations where the United States Supreme Court has cited facts, including statistics, that lower courts then relied on without further analysis. See, e.g., id. at 62 (statistic that a quarter of carpal tunnel cases resolve within a month without intervention). She has explored how factual assertions in Supreme Court opinions could be mistaken or one-sided. Larsen, Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding, 98 Va.L.Rev. 1255 (2012).

And from dead data to a dead appeal, Law360 has Atty's Scheduling Error Dooms Appeal In AT&T Forfeiture Suit

And check out this decision re appellate sanctions for a frivolous appeal from 2/5.

Because this appeal is both objectively and subjectively frivolous, we exercise our authority to impose sanctions on husband and his attorneys, jointly and severally. ....

In addition to her costs on appeal, wife shall be awarded reasonable fees and costs, in an amount to be determined by the family court, against husband and his attorneys, jointly and severally. Husband’s attorneys and the clerk of this court are each ordered to forward a copy of this court’s opinion to the State Bar upon issuance of the remittitur.

On the AI sanctions front, don't miss this published one from 4/1 here. The MetNews story is C.A. Imposes $1,500 Sanction for Citing Fake Cases -- Then-Court Commissioner, Opposing Counsel Faulted for Not Noticing Fakery

The DJ's story is Commissioner, now judge, approved order with fake AI case citations

AI sanctions coming?

Law360 reports Boies Schiller Partner Faces Possible Sanctions For AI Errors about Bixler v. Church of Scientology pending in 2/5 with argument set for March 3 at 9 a.m. See Notice of Potential Sanctions.

Law360 also reports Attys Regret Unnoticed ChatGPT Errors In Conn. Court Filings -- Attorneys ordered to explain errors in two January Connecticut Supreme Court briefs said ChatGPT altered legal arguments that counsel did not notice when they asked the artificial intelligence software to help limit duplicate passages, meet word count rules and format the filings.

2d Dist. pro tem update & AI sanctions

The following are currently sitting on assignment in the 2d District:

• Justice Arthur Gilbert (Retired) of the Second District Court of Appeal will be sitting Pro Tem in Division Two through March 31, 2026
• Judge Sanjay Kumar (Retired) of the Los Angeles County Superior Court will be sitting Pro Tem in Division Five through February 17, 2026
• Judge Von T. Nguyen Deroian of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court will be sitting Pro Tem in Division Six through March 31, 2026
• Judge Alexander C.D. Giza of the Los Angeles County Superior Court will be sitting Pro Tem in Division Seven through March 31, 2026

Law360 has 10th Circ. Ends Civil Rights Suit, Sanctions Atty For AI Errors -- the panel imposed a $1,000 sanction against pro se litigant Kusmin Amarsingh under Rule 38 for her "reckless disregard of the attorney's duties to the court" in utilizing ChatGPT to help draft a brief that inadvertently included seven "hallucinations."

Check the local rules!

1/5 published this opinion, which begins like this:

Our local rules require that all parties promptly notify us about a bankruptcy that could affect our ability to decide an appeal. Despite this requirement, the parties in this case waited over four months after the filing of a bankruptcy petition by plaintiff Navellier and Associates, Inc. (NAI) and just two days before oral argument to tell us about that petition. Exacerbating the potential consequences of this delay, plaintiffs Louis Navellier and NAI now contend that the automatic bankruptcy stay precludes us from deciding this appeal. (11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).) If plaintiffs are correct, then the parties’ failure to provide timely notice of the bankruptcy would have caused this court to squander its valuable time and resources. Fortunately, plaintiffs are not correct because Navellier did not file for bankruptcy and because NAI, the debtor, brought this action. Although the harm to this court caused by the parties’ violation of our local rules is therefore minimized, this does not excuse their misconduct. Although we do not sanction the parties, we do admonish them and advise them to learn and follow our local rules in the future.

The MetNews story is Counsel Cited for Not Following Local Rule About Bankruptcy -- Opinion Says Both Sides Were Derelict in Failing to Timely Inform Court of Plaintiff’s Pending Proceedings Where First District Guidelines Call for Notice, Outside Assurance That Petition Would Not Affect Appeal Is No Excuse

Prof. Martin's take is here.

Sanctions!

Dan Barer points out that yesterday 4/3 published this opinion imposing $25,000 in sanctions for a frivolous writ petition upon counsel for accusing the trial court of bias and misconduct without evidentiary support. In the introduction, the court writes:

“We publish this opinion as a cautionary tale: Lawyers may not make assertions in court that lack factual support, regardless of how much the lawyer or the client ‘earnestly believes’ them. Lawyers may not impugn the integrity of the very system of justice in which they serve without a solid basis in both fact and law. Dissatisfaction with a ruling, however deeply felt, is not itself evidence of judicial misconduct.”

“Most lawyers show remarkable skill in helping clients understand our professional obligations yet too many mistake the need for zealous advocacy with a ‘the customer is always right’ policy. We remind them that the legal profession runs on facts, law, and justice. The law cannot tolerate unsupported assertions fueled only by desires, especially baseless accusations against our hardworking trial judges.”

So sayeth Justice Nathan R. Scott

For Prof. Martin's take, see here.

Appellate sanctions

4/1 imposes appellate sanctions of $3K for filing a false notice of settlement here. Plus additional sanctions to be awarded later. The MetNews article is C.A. Imposes $3,000 Sanction for False Notice of Settlement, Other Breach of Duties