Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three · Cal. Ct. App. · California bar guidance
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., No. B331918 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2025) (certified for publication) (Edmon, P. J.)
- Decided
- September 12, 2025
Summary
In an employment appeal from a summary judgment, plaintiff's counsel Amir Mostafavi (Mostafavi Law Group) filed an opening brief containing 23 case quotations, 21 of which the court found were fabrications; the reply brief contained many more, and both briefs were "peppered with inaccurate citations that do not support the propositions for which they are cited." Examples included a quotation attributed to Schimmel v. Levin (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 81 that "does not appear in Schimmel," which contains no reference to summary judgment or section 437c, and "Goldstine v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.," which "appears to be a fabricated case." After an order to show cause, Mostafavi acknowledged in a written response that he relied on AI "to support citation of legal issues" and that the fabricated quotes were AI-generated, and said he had not been aware that generative AI frequently fabricates legal sources. The court recorded his admission that the fabrications "resulted from his reliance on generative AI sources such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok."
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok (counsel admitted the fabrications resulted from his reliance on "generative AI sources such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok")
- Sanction amount:
- $10,000 payable to the clerk of the Court of Appeal; opinion forwarded to the State Bar under Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.7(a)(3); counsel to serve the opinion on his client and certify service
What sanction did the court impose?
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and, in a certified-for- publication opinion by Presiding Justice Edmon, imposed what it called "a conservative sanction of $10,000" on Mostafavi, payable to the clerk of the court within 30 days of the remittitur, citing his representation that the conduct was unintentional and his expressed remorse. The clerk was ordered to forward the opinion to the State Bar under Business and Professions Code section 6086.7, subdivision (a)(3), and Mostafavi was ordered to give his client a copy within 15 days of the remittitur and file a certification that he had done so. The court declined to order sanctions payable to opposing counsel because respondents "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," and had not submitted a declaration of their fees and costs.
Why does Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. matter for law firms using AI?
The Second District published Noland for one reason, which the opinion states at the outset: the appeal was otherwise “a straightforward appeal that, under normal circumstances, would not warrant publication,” but “nearly all of the legal quotations in plaintiff’s opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff’s reply brief, are fabricated.” Observing that “no California court has addressed this issue,” the court wrote: “We therefore publish this opinion as a warning. Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations— whether provided by generative AI or any other source—that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified.”
The court treated ignorance of the technology’s failure mode as no excuse. Mostafavi said he had not known that generative AI fabricates authority, but the court noted that “even a superficial review of the literature would have alerted counsel to this issue” and pointed to the State Bar of California’s “Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law,” released in November 2023. Taking counsel “at his word” that he did not intend to deceive, the court wrote, quoting the Southern District of Florida’s Versant Funding decision, that before filing an attorney must “carefully check every case citation, fact, and argument to make sure that they are correct and proper.” His candor and remorse moderated the amount: the court called $10,000 “a conservative sanction.”
The opinion also addresses opposing counsel. The court declined to shift fees to respondents in part because they “did not alert the court to the fabricated citations,” a point firms documenting compliance may wish to consider for their own brief-review practice: checking an adversary’s citations can bear on whether a fee award is available.