The machine drafted it. The lawyer filed it.

Attorneys submitted nonexistent decisions and false quotations generated through ChatGPT, then supplied the court with supposed copies that contained more invented material. The court imposed a $5,000 penalty and required notice to the judges falsely named as authors.

The tell: fluent legal prose is not legal authority. Open the actual opinion and verify the proposition, quotation, court, date, and citation before filing.

A brief contained AI-generated authorities that did not withstand checking. The drafting attorney lost permission to appear in the case and was ordered to pay $3,000; supervising and local counsel were each ordered to pay $1,000.

The tell: responsibility does not stop with the person at the keyboard. Signing, supervising, and sponsoring counsel each have verification duties.

Counsel admitted using several generative tools to “enhance” appellate briefs without reading the finished work. The court found fabricated quotations and authorities, dismissed the appeal, imposed a $10,000 sanction, and referred the matter to the State Bar.

The tell: polishing is still authorship. A final human read must include source-level verification, not merely a grammar pass.

After briefs included nonexistent cases, misquoted language, and distorted holdings, counsel blamed typographical and copy-paste errors. The Ninth Circuit imposed monetary sanctions, six-month suspensions, and disclosure requirements.

The tell: the court emphasized candor. If an AI error reaches a filing, correct it quickly, notify the court and opposing counsel, and explain its source.