Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.

Issue

Is a California appeal frivolous, and is the lawyer who signed the briefs personally sanctionable, when nearly every case quotation in the opening brief was produced by generative AI and the lawyer never read the cases?

Rule

The Court of Appeal relied on two independent sources of authority. Code of Civil Procedure section 907 allows a reviewing court to add damages to costs when an appeal is frivolous or taken solely for delay, and section 128.7 permits sanctions where an attorney lacked a belief formed after reasonable inquiry that the legal contentions are warranted by existing law. California Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(4) separately permits sanctions for any unreasonable violation of the rules, and rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) requires each point in a brief to be supported by citation of authority. Frivolousness is measured by the subjective and objective tests of In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 649-650, and an appeal is objectively frivolous where the arguments rest on negligible legal foundation. Referral to the State Bar is required by Business and Professions Code section 6086.7, subdivision (a)(3).

Application

Sylvia Noland's opening brief contained 23 case quotations, 21 of which were fabricated. The Court of Appeal set out examples. The brief attributed to Schimmel v. Levin a discussion of the legislative purpose of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(2), although Schimmel does not mention summary judgment or section 437c at all, and it supplied a block quotation from Schimmel that appears in no California case. It quoted Regency Health Services for a rule about continuances that the opinion does not contain. It described Peake v. Underwood as addressing successive dispositive motions, which it does not. It cited Goldstine v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., which appears to be an entirely fabricated case. It attributed the phrase "frivolous litigation tactics" to Heckert v. MacDonald, in which the words frivolous, unfair, and tactics do not appear. The reply brief contained many more fabricated quotations. The court issued its own order to show cause. In a written response, attorney Amir Mostafavi acknowledged relying on AI to support citation of legal issues, said he had not known that generative AI fabricates legal sources, accepted responsibility, and argued that the errors were isolated, that the appeal was not frivolous, and that the right remedy was correction of the briefs rather than money. At oral argument he explained the mechanics: he wrote initial drafts, "enhanced" them with ChatGPT, ran the enhanced briefs through other AI platforms to check for errors, and did not read the enhanced briefs before filing them. The court rejected each of his mitigating arguments. It held the errors were not isolated, since the fabrications permeated both briefs, and that the existence of real but uncited authority supporting his positions does not excuse fraudulent case cites, because it is not the court's job to serve as backup appellate counsel. It rejected the lack-of-awareness defense on the ground that AI hallucinations had been discussed in cases and the press for years and that the State Bar of California had published "Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law" in November 2023, nearly two years earlier, while the notes to rule 1.1 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct already impose a duty to keep abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology. Notably, the court declined to strike the brief or dismiss the appeal even though it said the fabrications would justify either, because nothing indicated that Noland herself knew what her lawyer had done.

Conclusion

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on the merits and ordered attorney Amir Mostafavi personally to pay a $10,000 sanction to the clerk of the court within 30 days after the remittitur, to be deposited into the court's general fund. It called $10,000 conservative, explaining that it was moderating the figure because counsel represented that his conduct was unintentional and had expressed remorse. It ordered Mostafavi to give a copy of the opinion to his client within 15 days of the remittitur and to file a certification that he had done so, and directed the clerk to forward the opinion to the State Bar under Business and Professions Code section 6086.7, subdivision (a)(3). It declined to award sanctions payable to the respondents, because they had not alerted the court to the fabrications and had submitted no declaration of their fees and costs, though it awarded them ordinary appellate costs. The opinion is certified for publication and is citable in California.

In total, appellant's opening brief contains 23 case quotations, 21 of which are fabrications.

Edmon, P. J., for a unanimous panel, quantifying the fabrications in the opening brief

To state the obvious, it is a fundamental duty of attorneys to read the legal authorities they cite in appellate briefs or any other court filings to determine that the authorities stand for the propositions for which they are cited.

Edmon, P. J., for the panel, on the duty counsel abdicated

because counsel has represented that his conduct was unintentional, and because he has expressed remorse for his actions, we impose a conservative sanction of $10,000.

Edmon, P. J., for the panel, explaining why the sanction was set below the cost of processing the appeal

Why it matters. Noland was the first published California appellate decision on AI-fabricated authority, and the $10,000 figure has become a reference point that later courts cite when calibrating their own sanctions. It also draws a line practitioners should notice: the court separated the lawyer's conduct from the client's, sanctioning counsel personally while declining to strike the brief or dismiss the appeal.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

This summary was written from the opinion itself. Every quotation above was located in the text of the decision it is attributed to. It is a summary for public education and is not legal advice.

Related reading