Schlichter v. Kennedy
California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two · Cal. Ct. App. · California bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- Schlichter v. Kennedy, No. E083744 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist., Div. 2, Nov. 17, 2025) (certified for publication)
- Decided
- November 17, 2025
Summary
Attorney Jeffrey Dean Grotke (State Bar No. 231454), counsel for the appellant, included four nonexistent case citations across a petition for writ of supersedeas and the appellant's opening brief, including a fabricated "Estate of Layton (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d 599" cited for a proposition about the rights of life tenants to use property without committing waste. Justice Menetrez, writing for a panel that included Acting P.J. Fields and Justice Raphael, found Grotke's claim that the spurious citations were mere clerical errors from vLex compilation not credible, noting the citations bore "the hallmarks of hallucinated citations produced by generative AI" and that the actually existing cases with those names did not support the propositions cited. Grotke admitted using AI to "regenerate" the opening brief and conceded it was "possible" he used AI for the writ.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
- Sanction amount:
- $1,750
What sanction did the court impose?
$1,750 sanction payable individually by Grotke to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two within 30 days, with the Clerk directed to notify the State Bar of California under Business and Professions Code section 6086.7(a)(3) and California Rule of Court 10.1017.
Why does Schlichter v. Kennedy matter for law firms using AI?
Schlichter is the third published California appellate sanctions order on AI-fabricated authority, following Noland and Alvarez, and notably the first in which the sanctioned attorney denied AI was the source. The panel rejected the “clerical error” and “vLex compilation” explanations as not credible and imposed sanctions plus a mandatory State Bar referral, signaling that California appellate courts will look past attorney denials when the citation pattern itself bears AI hallucination hallmarks. For managing partners, the case underscores that a denial strategy is unlikely to mitigate exposure once the panel can match the brief’s citations against the reporter and find no overlap in either page numbers or legal propositions.
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.