A California court recently threw the book at some lawyers for relying on artificial intelligence (“AI”) to generate what turned out to be fabricated citations and misstated authorities—that is, so-called “AI hallucinations.”

In Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., a leasing agent/sales representative alleged no fewer than 25 claims, including violations of California’s wage and hour laws and wrongful termination. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company, finding no dispute that Noland had been an independent contractor and not an employee (as he had alleged). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the company, noting this “straightforward” case “under normal circumstances, would not warrant publication.”

However, the Court decided to “publish this opinion as a warning” because plaintiff’s counsel had used generative AI to draft their appellate briefs and “nearly all of the legal quotations in plaintiff’s opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff’s reply brief, [were] fabricated.” The Court detailed how 21 of 23 citations contained quotations or topics that did not appear in the cases cited and that some of the cases did not exist at all. As a result, the Court imposed a $10,000 sanction against plaintiff’s counsel, directed him to serve a copy of the opinion on his client and ordered that a copy of the Court’s opinion be forwarded to the State Bar.

The Court didn’t stop there. In addition to criticizing plaintiff’s counsel for not checking the cases AI had provided, the Court noted that the sanctions were not to be paid to defense counsel or its client because they “did not alert the court to the fabricated citations and appear to have become aware of the issue only when the court issued its order to show cause.”

As many courts before Noland have observed, lawyers have ethical duties of candor and competence that encompass the use of technology, including AI.  Noland serves as a powerful warning to practitioners across the Golden State (and beyond) that three years into the generative AI era, when an attorney cites authorities dreamed up by AI, courts will no longer tolerate protestations of ignorance about how these tools work.

As for the future of AI, the potential benefits for litigants and lawyers (and everyone else in today’s society) are breathtaking, but before settling on a final answer, don’t forget the old adage: “Trust, but Verify!”