Fifth Attorney Sanctioned for Unchecked AI-Drafted Brief

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Page 3

Fifth Attorney Sanctioned for Unchecked AI-Drafted Brief

Court of Appeal Orders Lawyer to Pay $7,500; Fourth Lawyer to Be Penalized Was Last Week Ordered to Pay $5,000

By a MetNews Staff Writer

A fifth California attorney in less than three months yesterday drew a monetary sanction imposed by a court of appeal for using artificial intelligence in crafting a brief and not checking to make sure the cases cited actually exist and are quoted accurately.

Div. One of this district, in a “By the Court” opinion—signed by Presiding Justice Rothschild and Justices Helen I. Bendix and Gregory Weingart—ordered Tarzana attorney Fahim Farivar to pay $7,500 to the clerk of the court. Just last week, the same panel socked another attorney, Robert W. Lucas of Folsom, in Sacramento County, with a $5,000 sanction—the apparent difference being that Lucas was contrite; Farivar wasn’t.

Sanctions have ranged from $1,750 to $10,000.

Fabricated Quotes

The panel said in yesterday’s opinion:

“It is undisputed that appellant’s attorney, Fahiin Farivar, filed a brief containing numerous fabricated quotations—that is, language falsely attributed to published decisions. By filing a brief that misrepresents legal authority, Farivar unreasonably violated longstanding rules of this court. Regardless of whether inaccuracies in a brief are the result of using artificial intelligence (AI) tools or some other drafting process, as Farivar and appellant argue occurred here, the signatory attorney is responsible for the content of the brief and subject to sanctions for inaccuracies it contains.

“Accordingly, we grant respondent’s motion to strike appellant Peiman Shayan’s opening brief. In addition, on the court’s own motion, we award monetary sanctions, payable to the court, against Farivar, and allow appellant to file a new brief.”

Explaining how the amount was arrived at, the justices said:

“We calculate this amount based on, inter alia: (1) the significant amount of time this court spent verifying the fabricated citations in the opening brief, and (2) that Farivar refused to accept responsibility for his conduct, instead characterizing the fabricated quotations and citations as mere ‘clerical citation errors’ and continuing to misrepresent legal authority in his opposition to the sanctions motion.”

The case is Shayan v. Shakib, B339376.

Lucas Sanctioned

The $5,000 sanction was imposed on Lucas on Nov. 25.

In an unpublished opinion by Acting Presiding Justice Helen I. Bendix filed Oct. 31, Div. One affirmed a three-year workplace violence restraining order imposed on Neill Francis Niblett, who had been a senior mechanic for the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and, in the same opinion, ordered Lucas to show cause why a sanction should not be imposed.

In a Nov. 10 response, the lawyer said:

“…I admit, without qualification, that I misused artificial intelligence in the opening brief, and while its use was an intentional act, the result was not. I never sought to mislead the Court or to waste the Court’s (and Respondent’s counsel’s) time and resources; I am horribly embarrassed and ashamed I did so.”

He added:

“While I ask the Court to issue an admonishment but no monetary sanctions, I understand why the Court could conclude an admonishment is not enough.”

It did conclude on Nov. 25 that would not be enough. The following day, the panel ordered partial publication of the Oct. 31 opinion—with the entire opinion as it relates to the restraining order designated to be included in the Official Reports but with all references to Lucas’s conduct remaining unpublished.

Differing Approach

That approach is in contrast to the one taken on Oct. 2 by the Fourth District’s Div. One in People v. Alvarez. There, a $1,500 sanction was imposed on San Diego attorney LeRoy George Siddell for filing, without scrutiny, what artificial intelligence—or, “AI”—had concocted.

“Because we conclude Attorney Siddell has violated a Rule of Professional Conduct, we are required to ‘take appropriate corrective action,” Presiding Justice Judith McConnell wrote, citing Canon 3D(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, adding:

“In line with this obligation, we are publishing this order.”

Lucas’s Conduct

In the unpublished portion of Bendix’s opinion, this is set forth:

“It…appears Attorney Lucas used artificial intelligence to prepare the opening brief, filed the brief without verifying the accuracy of the case authority it discusses, and failed to correct his mis citation of cases appearing in the opening brief despite the County’s appellate brief noting these errors. Attorney Lucas’s behavior is troubling and presents potential ethical issues we cannot ignore….It is also presumptuous to assume he would not be ‘caught’; Attorney Lucas apparently believes we do not read cases cited in briefs. More disturbing is his apparent disregard of his duties as an officer of the court. Our legal system depends on the integrity of counsel and the bench. Citing nonexistent authority or misciting holdings of cases tarnishes the integrity of the process.”

The case is County of Los Angeles v. Niblett, 2025 S.O.S. 3425.

Jeffrey M. Hausman and Larry D. Stratton of the Woodland Hills firm of Hausman & Sosa represented the county on appeal.

Other Decisions

The first of the Court of Appeal decisions sanctioning attorneys for using AI without verifying the accuracy of what was produced was Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., handed down by this district’s Div. Three on Sept. 12. A $10,000 penalty was assessed against West Los Angeles attorney Amir Mostafavi.

Presiding Justice Lee Edmon wrote:

“Although the generation of fake legal authority by AI sources has been widely commented on by federal and out-of-state courts and reported by many media sources, no California court has addressed this issue. We therefore publish this opinion as a warning. Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations—whether provided by generative AI or any other source—that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified. Because plaintiff s counsel’s conduct in this case violated a basic duty counsel owed to his client and the court, we impose a monetary sanction on counsel, direct him to serve a copy of this opinion on his client, and direct the clerk of the court to serve a copy of this opinion on the State Bar.”

A like direction to the clerk was made with respect to the four other sanctioned attorneys, as required by Business & Professions Code §6086.7(a)(3) where the amount of the penalty is $1,000 or more, unless it stems from a discovery dispute..

Div. Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeal on Nov. 17, in Schlichter v. Kennedy, imposed a $1,750 sanction, payable to the court, on Redlands practitioner Jeffrey D. Grotke. Justice Frank J. Menetrez said Grotke cited nonexistent cases both in a petition for a writ of supersedeas and in the appellant’s opening brief.

Unpublished Opinion

An Oct. 7 unpublished opinion from this district’s Div. Three in Paperman v. Besser, written by Justice Rashida Adams, alludes in a footnote to a nonexistent case having been cited by the respondents’ attorney, Brian R. Condon of Torrance, but no sanction was imposed and there is no allusion to AI.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal on Sept. 30, in In re Marriage of D.X. and S.P., did attribute blunders to AI. The offending party, appellant Shu Peng, is a non-attorney who was in pro per.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Lisa Rodriguez, sitting on assignment, wrote:

“Throughout her briefs, S.P. referenced multiple cases that either do not exist or do not support the proposition asserted, which appears to be a common issue associated with using AI tools to generate legal arguments….

“We recognize that AI tools can be a helpful resource for self-represented litigants attempting to present their arguments more clearly in a legal forum. But, AI tools can just as easily produce flawed arguments….We reiterate the rule that all litigants who appear before the court, whether or not represented by counsel, have an obligation to confirm that the case citations submitted in their briefs are citable, published opinions.”

District Court Case

On Nov. 20, U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the Northern District of California, in the case of Buchanan v. Vuori, Inc., remarked:

“Of particular concern to courts today is the rise in non-existent cases and quotations hallucinated by artificial intelligence tools.”

He noted that in reviewing a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement filed by San Jose attorney James Dal Bon, “the Court found the memorandum included 8 quotations supposedly attributable to a real case that do not actually appear in the case text, and one nonexistent case ….”

Dal Bon admitted using AI and proposed, as a penalty for not checking the citations, forfeiture of his fees in the case and that he refile his motion, certifying that he made certain no fictitious cases or quotes were included. Rejecting the suggestion, Cousins ordered that Dal Bon pay a $250 sanction, struck his motion without leave to re-file it, and reported him to the court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct.

The case is Buchanan v. Vuori, Inc., 23-cv-01121.