A California Court of Appeal has upheld sanctions against plaintiff attorneys who submitted a legal brief riddled with AI-generated fabrications in a wage and hour class action.
The case, Quinteros v. Harbor Distrib., LLC, centred on what the court described as “evident misuse of generative artificial intelligence” in an otherwise meritless pleading.
The brief submitted by the plaintiffs’ lawyers contained non-existent citations, fabricated quotations, and seriously misrepresented controlling legal authority.
The trial court found the conduct egregious enough to impose financial penalties on the attorneys under California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7.
Sanctions of $5,000 were ordered payable to the opposing party, with an additional $1,000 directed to the court itself.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the sanctions order in full, finding that procedural challenges had been forfeited because they were not raised before the trial court.
The attorneys’ substantive argument, that the punishment does not fit the crime, was dismissed by the appellate court as entirely without merit.
The ruling adds to a growing body of cases in which lawyers have faced professional and financial consequences for submitting AI-generated content without adequate verification.
Legal experts warn that generative AI tools can produce plausible-sounding but entirely fictitious case references, placing the burden firmly on attorneys to check every citation before filing.
Courts across the United States have grown increasingly intolerant of AI-assisted errors, and this latest ruling from California signals that appellate judges are prepared to back robust sanctions at the trial level.
The case serves as a stark reminder to the legal profession that responsibility for the accuracy of court filings remains entirely with the human lawyers who sign them, regardless of the tools used in their preparation.