Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.

California's first published appellate opinion on AI hallucinations, an issue of first impression, and still the case that states the state's rule most plainly: no filing may contain a citation the responsible attorney has not personally read and verified. It also carries a wrinkle aimed at the other side of the caption: the court denied the opposing party's fee request because opposing counsel never alerted the court to the fabrications.

Plaintiff's counsel Amir Mostafavi used ChatGPT and other AI tools to "enhance" his appellate briefs in Noland v. Land of the Free and never verified the output. Twenty-one of the 23 case quotations in the opening brief were fabricated: nonexistent cases, invented quotes, real cases cited for propositions they do not support. The reply brief carried many more.

California Rules of Court 8.204(a)(1)(B) and counsel's basic duty to client and court; the court held the conduct rendered the appeal frivolous. Sanction: $10,000 payable to the court, the opinion to be served on the client, and the clerk directed to serve it on the State Bar. Follow-on discipline resolved with a one-year stayed suspension and one year of probation.

Verify every quotation character for character against the opinion itself, and every case for the proposition it is cited for. And if you are on the other side: spot-check your opponent's key authorities and alert the court promptly when they are fabricated. Early detection is what preserves a fee recovery.

This case is covered in Episode 5: Lawyer Filed 21 Fake AI Quotes Without Reading Brief (Ep 5) (watch on YouTube).

• Sources: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/12/10k-sanction-for-ai-hallucination-in-appellate-brief/
• lawnext.com: https://www.lawnext.com/2025/09/a-new-wrinkle-in-ai-hallucination-cases-lawyers-dinged-for-failing-to-detect-opponents-fake-citations.html
• law.justia.com: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2025/b331918.html