In re Estate of Acciavatti (Dineen v. Kotchka)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One · Ariz. Ct. App. · Arizona bar guidance
Conduct
Self-represented appellant filed a brief where six of eight citations were wrong, two to cases that do not exist, after using AI research tools.
Consequence
Citations struck, issues waived, probate order affirmed; appellant pays the fees his hallucinated citations caused (A.R.S. 12-349, ARCAP 25).
Lesson
Division One held that hallucinated citations are sanctionable whether intentional or not, and applied that rule to a self-represented party.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- In re Estate of Acciavatti (Dineen v. Kotchka), No. 1 CA-CV 25-0606 PB (Ariz. App. July 15, 2026)
- Decided
- July 15, 2026
Summary
Self-represented appellant Jeffrey Kotchka appealed a probate order admitting a will to formal probate and appointing Kim Dineen personal representative. His opening brief contained eight citations, six of them deficient: cases cited for principles they do not support, wrong pin cites, misstated rules and facts, and "two cases that simply do not exist." It cited nothing in the record. In a written explanation Kotchka said he relied on "independent internet research . . . utiliz[ing] artificial-intelligence-assisted research tools." The court then ordered him to testify under oath at a show-cause hearing, where he admitted he did nothing to independently verify the citations. He also stated that he is not a trained lawyer and that the errors were unintentional.
- AI tool:
- Unnamed "artificial-intelligence-assisted research tools" (the self-represented appellant's description)
- Sanction amount:
- Appellant ordered to pay the appellee the portion of her appellate attorneys' fees caused by the hallucinated and misrepresented citations (A.R.S. 12-349 and ARCAP 25), amount to be set on application; deficient citations struck and issues treated as waived
What sanction did the court impose?
In a published opinion (Furuya, J., joined by Jacobs, P.J., and Morse, J.), the court struck each inaccurate or false citation, treated the appellant's issues as waived for noncompliance with ARCAP 13, and affirmed. As a sanction under A.R.S. section 12-349 and ARCAP 25, it awarded the appellee the portion of her reasonable attorneys' fees incurred because of the hallucinated and misrepresented citations, against the appellant and contingent on her ARCAP 21 application. Separately, as prevailing party she was awarded costs under A.R.S. sections 12-341 and -342(A); fees under A.R.S. section 14-1105 were denied.
Why does In re Estate of Acciavatti (Dineen v. Kotchka) matter for law firms using AI?
The court wrote to settle a question it described as “a recurring and increasing problem that has not been squarely addressed by any prior published Arizona authority.” Its holding is direct: “citing a hallucinated case in a legal filing is sanctionable conduct,” and “[f]ailure to act with reasonable diligence to check—and correct—any work product created using Gen-AI that is submitted to the courts constitutes abuse of Gen-AI tools in litigation.” The appellant’s lack of intent was no defense: “Submission of hallucinated case citations—intentional or unintentional—is unjustifiable.”
The remedies show how an Arizona appellate court can respond without a freestanding fine. The court struck each deficient citation, which left the brief without supporting authority, treated the issues as waived under ARCAP 13, and affirmed. It then shifted to the appellant the share of the appellee’s fees attributable to responding to the hallucinated and misrepresented citations. The court grounded that award in A.R.S. section 12-349 (claims groundless and not made in good faith) and ARCAP 25, having also identified its inherent power to manage its affairs as a basis for sanctions.
Although the sanctioned party here was not a lawyer, the opinion’s reasoning, which draws on Ariz. R. Civ. P. 11(b), speaks to every filer. Firms documenting compliance in Arizona may wish to consider the opinion’s framing that AI use itself is not the problem; filing unchecked output is.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Review filings from self-represented opponents for AI-generated authority and consider a targeted fee request. The court awarded the appellee the fees attributable to the hallucinated citations under A.R.S. 12-349 and ARCAP 25.
- Document verification on every filing regardless of intent. The court held that submission of hallucinated case citations, 'intentional or unintentional,' is unjustifiable.
- Consider the court's framing for training: it emphasized that 'using Gen-AI is not, in and of itself, objectionable'; the failure is not checking and correcting the work product.