Friday, August 28, 2026
Page 1
C.A. Says Pro Pers Must Pay Sanctions for Fake AI-Generated Citations in Brief
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeal yesterday declared that husband-and-wife appellants, who are in pro per, who relied on non-existent legal authorities and fabricated quotes must pay the respondents’ attorney fees on appeal, but bounced the case back to the trial court to determine the amount of the recompense.
“[A]ll of those citations bear the hallmarks of fabricated legal authority created by generative artificial intelligence (AI), commonly referred to as AI hallucinations,” Justice Frank J. Menetrez said in his unpublished opinion.
While appellate courts have imposed sanctions on attorneys based on the unchecked use of AI-generated faux authorities, there has been a reluctance to do so with respect to pro per appellants.
Metetrez’s Previous Opinions
It was Menetrez who authored the June 23 unpublished opinion in Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union in which he made note of appellant Trina R. Patterson’s apparent reliance on AI in fabricating cases and quotes, but made no mention of sanctions. He did direct that the Superior Court consider whether to declare Patterson to be a vexatious litigant.
In a July 2 unpublished opinion, in Patterson v. Nuvision Credit Union, Menetrez pointed to Paterson’s use of phony citations and said:
“Attorneys who have filed briefs containing citations to fabricated legal authority have been sanctioned….Pro se litigants have been warned of the same possible outcome.” He did not explain why no sanctions were being imposed on the pro per.
By contrast, an explanation was provided in the March 19 partially published opinion from the Court of Appeal’s First District’s Div. Four in Sheerer v. Panas. The court said a father, who was contesting a child-support order, had admitted his error and “it would not be in the best interest of the children at the heart of the underlying proceedings.”
Unreasonable Violation
Menetrez said in yesterday’s opinion, which affirms a judgment in favor of the Bank of New York Mellon and against Rajesh and Mahima Varma:
“We are authorized to impose sanctions on self-represented litigants for committing any ‘unreasonable violation’ of the rules….Citation to fabricated legal authority constitutes an unreasonable violation of the rules of court….
“Like attorneys, pro se litigants are free to use generative AI to assist in drafting briefs but must check eveiy citation to ensure that the cited authority exists, that it supports the proposition for which it is cited, and that quotations are accurate….The use of nonexistent authorities and quotations in court filings is improper regardless of the source.”
He declared:
“[W]e sanction the Varmas in the amount of the Bank of New York’s appellate attorney fees, payable to the Bank of New York. The matter is remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of the fee award. As with other attorney fee awards, the trial court retains discretion to decrease the amount generated by a lodestar fee calculation.”
Menetrez said there were striking similarities between the Varmas’s brief and those filed by Patterson in her two appeals. He related that at a hearing on an order to show cause re sanctions, Rajesh Varma said (contradicting what he had indicated in writings) that he and his wife had paid Patterson to draft their opening brief.
The justice wrote:
“The Varmas’ only credible explanation for the extensive use of fabricated legal mthority in then opening brief is that someone else drafted the brief and that they were maware that she used generative AI. Although we are inclined to believe that the explanation is factually accurate, it does not excuse the Yarmas’ conduct. As self- :epresented litigants who signed the brief, the Varmas were solely and exclusively responsible for the contents of the brief. In particular, and regardless of who drafted the brief, the Varmas were responsible for verifying the accuracy of the legal authority, citations, and propositions in the brief.”
The clerk of the court was directed “to forward a copy of this opinion to the State Bar to conduct any investigation it deems appropriate concerning the possible unauthorized practice of law by Trina Patterson.”
The case is Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon, E085566
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company