Rasmussen v. Rasmussen
Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma · Cal. Super. Ct. (Sonoma Cnty.) · California bar guidance
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, No. 24CV02293 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sonoma Cnty. Aug. 23, 2024) (tentative ruling)
- Decided
- August 23, 2024
Summary
Defendant, a licensed California attorney appearing in propria persona, filed a demurrer in a property partition action that cited multiple nonexistent or misrepresented California cases, including Ferreira v. Ferreira (mis-cited as supporting joinder for equitable distribution when it is in fact a child custody case), Erlich v. Superior Court, Albertson v. Raboff, and entirely fabricated decisions Dino v. Pelliccioni, Harmon v. Harmon, Estate of Green, and Kerrigan v. O'Meara. Judge Christopher M. Honigsberg overruled the demurrer and noted the citations' resemblance to the fabricated authorities in Mata v. Avianca, observing that the pattern is consistent with large-language-model output filed without verification.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
Defendant ordered to appear in person on October 11, 2024 to show cause why the court should not impose contempt under CCP sections 128 and 1209, a fine up to $1,000 under CCP section 1218, disqualification from representing herself and from being represented by her law firm under CCP section 128(a)(5), a report to the State Bar under Bus. & Prof. Code section 6086.7(a)(1), and a State Bar referral for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct (rules 3.3(a)(2) and 8.4(c)) and Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068(d).
Why does Rasmussen v. Rasmussen matter for law firms using AI?
Rasmussen is a useful illustration for managing partners because the sanctioned filer was the defendant herself, a licensed attorney appearing pro per, not an outside counsel of record. The court tied the misconduct directly to Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(2) and 8.4(c) and to Business and Professions Code section 6068(d), and queued a State Bar referral on top of contempt and disqualification, signaling that California trial judges are now treating unverified AI citations as a candor-to-the-tribunal violation rather than a mere drafting error.
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.
- Final disposition of the October 11, 2024 OSC hearing