Monday, March 23, 2026
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Pro Pers Are Held to Same Standard as Lawyers in Using AI
Justices Warn That Parties on Appeal Could Have Briefs Stricken, Monetary Sanctions Imposed for Fake Citations
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Four of the First District Court of Appeal has served notice to self-represented lay parties that they, to the same extent as lawyers, are subject to monetary sanctions for providing false citations as the result of using artificial intelligence.
The pronouncement comes in a published portion of an opinion, filed Thursday. The bulk of that opinion—reversing a child-support order because the totality of the father’s income was not taken into account—was not certified for publication.
Mendocino Superior Court Judge Ann C. Moorman, siting on assignment, authored the opinion. She pointed to the Sept. 12 decision by Div. Three of this district’s Court of Appeal in Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. in which Presiding Justice Lee Edmon said of the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) without checking for accuracy:
“We…publish this opinion as a warning. Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper tiled in any court should contain any citations—whether provided by generative Al or any other source—that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified. Because plaintiffs 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.”
Moorman wrote:
“We partially publish this opinion to extend that warning to in propria persona litigants.”
Striking of Brief
Respondent Thomas Panas, a nonlawyer pro per, admittedly wrote his brief on appeal using artificial intelligence. His ex-wife, appellant Anna Sheerer, pointed out the fake citations and asked the court to strike the respondent’s brief.
Panas responded that he “did not knowingly submit false information to the Court.” Finding that excuse unsatisfactory, Moorman set forth:
“His lack of knowledge, of course, is a direct result of his failure to verify citations, a requirement of all attorneys and self-represented litigants responsible for briefs filed in this Court. Respondent’s conduct in this regard is a patent violation of the Rules of Court and alone, merits striking his brief.”
She did not explain why the court decided not to do so.
Other Recourse
Moorman continued:
“[O]ur warning to litigants is not merely an admonition to double-check citations and otherwise fastidiously comply with the Rules of Court; it is to be at all times truthful and to be responsible in crafting any written arguments presented in this Court….We further caution that our redress for false and missing citations is not limited to disregarding a brief.”
The court has the power, she noted, to impose monetary sanctions. The visiting jurist declared, however, that “given Panas’s admission of his error and considering that it would not be in the best interest of the children at the heart of the underlying proceedings, we choose not to do so here.”
The case is Sheerer v. Panas, 2025 S.O.S. 754.
State Bar Committee
Also on Thursday, the State Bar’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct issued a reminder to attorneys on the risks in relying on AI, saying:
“While these tools can be helpful in streamlining some aspects of legal work, attorneys must use them in a manner consistent with their duty of competence…diligence…and responsibilities as managerial and supervisory lawyers….Competent use of such technology requires understanding its limitations, including the risk of fake or ‘hallucinated’” content, outdated or incomplete legal authorities, and the inadvertent disclosure of confidential client information through prompts.”
The committee pointed to lawyers facing the prospects of sanctions for use of phony quotes, and cautioned:
“Attorneys must independently verify any Al-assisted work product before relying on it in any context. Diligent representation requires that attorneys not delegate their professional judgment to Al, but instead review, edit, and take responsibility for the substance and timing of all filings, communications, and advice.”
Proposed guidelines relating to use of AI will be presented to the Board of Trustees in May, the committee noted.
The State Bar acted swiftly in responding to Edmon’s opinion in Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. On Feb. 26, State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland signed a recommendation that Pacific Palisades attorney Amir Mostafavi, the appellant’s attorney in that case, “be suspended for one year, execution of which is stayed, [and] that he be placed on probation for one year.”
With the Los Angeles Superior Court’s launching of a pilot program under which some judges are using AI, the prospect looms of such assistance becoming commonplace, and the Commission on Judicial Performance issuing admonishments based on bench officers relying on the tools without checking for hallucinations.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company