Krista C. Geddes v. LoanCare, LLC, et al.
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California · E.D. Cal. · California bar guidance
Conduct
Here a lawyer representing herself put quotation marks around two sentences that do not appear in the cited opinions, then called them paraphrases.
Consequence
$1,000 sanction; she must serve the order on the California Bar Association herself and file a notice of compliance.
Lesson
Here the court read quotation marks as a claim of verbatim text and found the paraphrase explanation disingenuous.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Geddes v. LoanCare, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-02955-JAM-DMC, Order re Sanctions (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2026) (Cota, Mag. J.), ECF No. 47
- Decided
- April 22, 2026
Summary
Plaintiff Krista C. Geddes, a licensed California attorney proceeding pro se, put two quotations in her supplemental jurisdictional briefing that the court found were not in the cited opinions. She attributed to Kachlon v. Markowitz, 168 Cal.App.4th 316 (2008), a statement that a trustee's privilege "may be lost where the trustee acts with malice or exceeds the scope of its statutory duties," and to Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A., 885 F.Supp.2d 964 (N.D. Cal. 2012), a statement that trustee defendants "cannot be considered nominal parties." Defendants raised the problem; ordered to respond, she described the passages as "paraphrased summaries of legal principles" and the errors as unintentional. Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota rejected that account because she had placed quotation marks around these sentences but not around other paraphrases, a difference he said "demonstrates intent to misrepresent authorities." He held her to a higher standard than a non-attorney pro se litigant and wrote that, even if the misquotes were accidental, she "had the duty to make a reasonable inquiry into their validity" under Rule 11(b)(2).
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the order voices concern about generative AI but says its use "is not conclusive here" and does not attribute the misquotes to AI or name a tool)
- Sanction amount:
- $1,000, payable within 30 days; Plaintiff ordered to serve a copy of the order on the California Bar Association and to file a notice of compliance within 60 days
What sanction did the court impose?
The court ordered Plaintiff (called "Petitioner" in the decretal paragraphs) to pay $1,000 in sanctions within 30 days, to serve a copy of the order on the California Bar Association, and to file a notice of compliance within 60 days. The order directs Plaintiff herself to serve the bar; it does not direct the clerk or the court to make a referral. The court called her effort to recast the misquotes as paraphrase "both disingenuous and lacking any effort to take responsibility," and said the case warranted "both a monetary sanction and reporting to the bar." In a separate passage the court expressed "grave concern about the use of generative artificial intelligence without the appropriate due diligence," while stating that AI's use "is not conclusive here."
Why does Krista C. Geddes v. LoanCare, LLC, et al. matter for law firms using AI?
Geddes is unusual because the sanctioned lawyer was her own client. Plaintiff, a member of the California bar, represented herself in a suit against LoanCare, LLC and others, and the misquotes appeared in supplemental briefing on whether a trustee defendant was a nominal party for removal purposes. Judge Cota held that her status as a licensed attorney “confers a higher standard of candor to this Court than a non-attorney pro-se litigant,” and he distinguished S.E.C. v. Historic Asset Placement Services, where a non-attorney pro se defendant received only a warning.
The decisive fact for the court was typography. Plaintiff’s brief paraphrased other authorities without quotation marks but put quotation marks around the two Kachlon and Barrionuevo passages. The court concluded that the difference “demonstrates intent to misrepresent authorities” and that the misquotes could not be treated as paraphrase. It added that if the misquotes were intentional she violated California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(2), and that even if they were accidental she “had the duty to make a reasonable inquiry into their validity,” citing Rule 11(b)(2). Comparing Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, the court found the volume of defects here smaller but the “intent to gain an unfair advantage through a misrepresentation of legal citation” the same.
The order discusses generative AI only in general terms and expressly says its use “is not conclusive here.” The court nevertheless warned that if Plaintiff “elects to go down the treacherous path of employing generative artificial intelligence in drafting her filings,” she bears responsibility for that choice. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that the court’s reasoning turned on verification and candor, not on how the text was produced.
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.
- Verify every quotation against the cited opinion before filing. Here the court treated quotation marks as a representation that the words appear in the case.
- Review how errors are explained once flagged. This court called the paraphrase account "disingenuous" and weighed the lack of a "satisfactory explanation" in imposing sanctions.
- Document citation checks for lawyers appearing pro se as well. The court held this attorney-litigant to a higher standard of candor than a non-attorney pro se party.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference: the order discusses generative AI in general terms but states that its use "is not conclusive here" and does not find that the misquotes came from AI.
- The order does not say whether Plaintiff served the order on the bar or paid the sanction.