Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon
California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two · Cal. Ct. App. · California bar guidance
Conduct
Self-represented appellants filed a brief (credited as drafted for pay by a nonlawyer) with four nonexistent cases and seven fabricated quotations, then gave conflicting accounts.
Consequence
Ordered to pay the bank's appellate attorney fees (amount set on remand); opinion sent to the State Bar about the nonlawyer drafter; fee waivers withdrawn.
Lesson
Signers own the brief: the court held the self-represented appellants solely responsible even after crediting that someone else drafted it.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon, No. E085566 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Div. 2 Aug. 27, 2026) (nonpub. opn.)
- Decided
- August 27, 2026
Summary
Rajesh and Mahima Varma, representing themselves, appealed an order denying and striking their petition for a "default administrative judgment" against the Bank of New York Mellon, which had foreclosed on their Corona home. The court's order to show cause identified four cited cases that appear not to exist (including West Covina Healthcare v. Superior Court and Rappaport v. Gelfand), seven quotations attributed to real cases that do not appear in them, and six unsupported propositions. In writing the Varmas said they "relied, in most part, upon artificial intelligence research tools." At the hearing, Rajesh Varma said neither of them drafted the brief: they had paid Trina Patterson, a nonlawyer then pursuing her own appeals in the same court, for legal advice and to draft it, and they "didn't read it in detail." Patterson had signed the original brief's word-count certificate, and eight of its fifteen argument sections matched her own briefs. The court took judicial notice of Patterson's briefs and opinions, said it was inclined to believe the hearing account, and found the Varmas' claim to have learned their lesson not credible, noting their shared use of the phrase "ghost cases" and their failure to support fee waiver applications.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (the appellants' written responses said they relied on "artificial intelligence research tools"; the court credited their later account that a paid nonlawyer drafted the brief and that they "were unaware that she used generative AI"; tool not identified)
- Sanction amount:
- Appellants ordered to pay the Bank of New York Mellon's appellate attorney fees as a sanction under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(4), amount to be set by the trial court on remand; opinion forwarded to the State Bar regarding possible unauthorized practice of law by the nonlawyer drafter, Trina Patterson
What sanction did the court impose?
In an unpublished opinion by Justice Menetrez (with Acting Presiding Justice McKinster and Justice Miller), the court affirmed the trial court's order and awarded the bank its costs. It held that the Varmas "unreasonably violated rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)" by failing to support each point with real legal authority, and that as the self-represented signers "the Varmas were solely and exclusively responsible for the contents of the brief," regardless of who drafted it. As the sanction it ordered them to pay the Bank of New York Mellon's appellate attorney fees, remanding to the trial court to set the amount, with the trial court retaining discretion to reduce the lodestar. It directed the clerk to forward the opinion to the State Bar "concerning the possible unauthorized practice of law by Trina Patterson." Separately, after the Varmas failed to document their eligibility, the court retroactively withdrew their filing fee waivers and ordered them to pay the filing fee.
Why does Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon matter for law firms using AI?
Varma is the sequel to Patterson v. Nuvision Credit Union, and Justice Menetrez wrote both. Patterson had told the court she prepared briefs for other self-represented litigants; Varma shows what that looked like from the other side. Patterson signed the word-count certificate on the Varmas’ original brief and one of its proofs of service, and the court found that seven of the listed issues and eight of the fifteen argument sections were materially the same as in Patterson’s own briefs. The Varmas first told the court they had used AI research tools themselves, then said at the hearing that they had paid Patterson to write the brief. The court said it was “inclined to believe” the hearing account and “not inclined to believe” the written one; the “little weight” it assigned went to their written claims that they had learned their lesson.
The credibility findings defeated their request to forgo monetary sanctions. The court noted that the Varmas described AI-fabricated authorities as “ghost cases,” an expression Patterson had used and that the court said it “could not find a single such use of” in “a search of all federal and state case law,” and inferred Patterson helped draft their show-cause response. It also noted that they did nothing to remediate the brief after the tentative opinion’s warning and that they did not defend their fee waiver applications. Against that record, it rejected their request to forgo monetary sanctions and shifted the bank’s appellate fees to them.
The legal holding is simple and applies to any signer. “As self-represented litigants who signed the brief, the Varmas were solely and exclusively responsible for the contents of the brief,” the court wrote, and “regardless of who drafted the brief” they were responsible for verifying its authorities. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider how that principle, which the court supported by citing Sheerer v. Panas and Shayan v. Shakib, applies to any filing signed on the strength of someone else’s drafting.
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.
- Review opposing self-represented filings for signs of a common ghostwriter; the court compared briefs across three appeals, found identical sections, and linked them to one drafter.
- Consider requesting appellate attorney fees as the sanction when an opponent's brief rests on fabricated authority; the court awarded the respondent's fees and left the amount to the trial court.
- Document that the signer is responsible for every citation regardless of who drafted a filing; the court applied that rule to self-represented signers, as courts have applied it to attorneys.