Shayan v. Shakib
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One · Cal. Ct. App. · California bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- Shayan v. Shakib, Nos. B337559, B339376 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025) (certified for publication)
- Decided
- December 1, 2025
Summary
Attorney Fahim Farivar of Farivar Law Firm filed an opening brief containing numerous fabricated quotations falsely attributed to published California decisions, including language attributed to Gogri v. Jack in the Box, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 255 about attorney fees and prevailing party status that the Gogri opinion does not discuss or even mention. Respondent argued the fabrications were AI hallucinations; Farivar denied using AI and blamed nonattorney staff replacing "placeholder" paraphrases in his draft. The Court of Appeal (Rothschild, P.J., joined by Bendix and Weingart, JJ.) held the signatory attorney is responsible for the brief's content regardless of whether inaccuracies stem from AI or another drafting process.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
- Sanction amount:
- $7,500
What sanction did the court impose?
Opening brief stricken with leave to file a corrected brief within 10 days. $7,500 in monetary sanctions imposed on Farivar payable to the clerk of the court. Clerk directed to serve the order on the State Bar of California for further disciplinary review.
Why does Shayan v. Shakib matter for law firms using AI?
Shayan v. Shakib is a published California appellate decision that closes a common defense to AI-hallucination sanctions. Farivar disclaimed AI use and attributed the fabricated quotations to a staff editing process involving placeholder paraphrases, but the court held the signatory attorney is responsible for the accuracy of filings regardless of cause, expressly aligning the analysis with prior AI-hallucination sanctions in Alvarez and Noland. For managing partners, the practical takeaway is that a documented “humans only” drafting policy will not insulate the firm: the duty to verify quoted authority is the attorney’s, and a State Bar referral attaches whether the misquotation came from a model or a paralegal.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.