Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.
Certified for Publication (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney has a fundamental duty to personally read and verify all legal authorities cited in court filings, and relying on generative artificial intelligence tools to produce fabricated legal citations without verification constitutes a sanctionable frivolous appeal and an unreasonable violation of court rules.
Facts:
- In January 2018, Land of the Free, L.P. and Jose Luis Nazar (defendants) hired Sylvia Noland (plaintiff) as their leasing agent and sales representative for an office building and an event space.
- Defendants agreed to pay Noland for administrative work, plus commissions for event bookings (6%) and secured tenants (2%), and a $3,500 monthly draw.
- Defendants subsequently failed to pay Noland $1,000 per month for administrative work, ceased paying her monthly draw in 2018, and did not pay a $60,000 commission she claimed to be owed for securing a $3.5 million, 10-year lease.
- Around June 2018, Noland discovered that the San Vicente property, which she was leasing, lacked the necessary permits for medical providers.
- Noland resigned from her position, alleging she was constructively terminated due to intolerable working conditions that required her to secure lease agreements in violation of the law and act unethically towards clients.
Procedural Posture:
- Sylvia Noland filed a complaint in August 2018, and an operative second amended complaint in August 2019, asserting 25 causes of action against Land of the Free, L.P. and Jose Luis Nazar.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in September 2022, which the trial court (Judge David Sotelo) denied on procedural grounds due to insufficient notice, without addressing the merits.
- In January 2023, defendants filed an ex parte application to continue the trial, citing counsel's recent automobile accident, which the trial court granted, continuing the trial to May 2023 (later June 2023) and extending the five-year deadline to December 2023.
- Defendants refiled their motion for summary judgment in January 2023, which was essentially identical to the prior motion.
- Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against defendants, arguing the second summary judgment motion violated Code of Civil Procedure section 437, subdivision (f)(2) and was filed for improper delay.
- On May 25, 2023, the trial court denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions, overruled the objection to the second summary judgment motion, and continued the hearing to allow plaintiff to file a substantive opposition.
- Plaintiff thereafter filed a substantive opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, urging that there were triable issues of fact as to each cause of action.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding, among other things, that Noland was an independent contractor, no commission was owed, no adverse employment actions occurred, and no triable issues for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- On July 25, 2023, Noland filed a notice of appeal from the order granting summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal, which later construed the order as incorporating an appealable judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's submission of appellate briefs containing numerous fabricated legal quotations and citations, generated by artificial intelligence tools without personal verification, constitute a sanctionable frivolous appeal or an unreasonable violation of California Rules of Court?
Opinions:
Majority - Edmon, P. J.
Yes, an attorney's submission of appellate briefs containing numerous fabricated legal quotations and citations, generated by artificial intelligence tools without personal verification, constitutes a sanctionable frivolous appeal and an unreasonable violation of California Rules of Court. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, finding plaintiff's substantive arguments on appeal lacked merit. However, the court identified a pervasive issue with fabricated legal authority in plaintiff's appellate briefs, noting that nearly all quotations were fake, many cited cases did not support the propositions, and some cases did not exist at all, all due to counsel's reliance on generative AI tools without verification. The court emphasized that it is a fundamental duty of attorneys to personally read and verify all legal authorities they cite in court filings, a duty counsel "fundamentally abdicated." It rejected counsel's argument that he was unaware of AI "hallucinations," pointing to extensive public discussion and State Bar guidance on the issue. The court found the appeal frivolous because it "rest[ed] on negligible legal foundation" and unreasonably violated Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) of the California Rules of Court by not supporting points with real legal authority. To deter similar conduct and compensate the court for wasted resources in verifying fabricated citations, the court imposed a $10,000 monetary sanction on counsel, Amir Mostafavi, and directed him to serve a copy of the opinion on his client and for the clerk to serve a copy on the State Bar.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in California, marking the first published appellate opinion to directly address the sanctionability of attorneys for using generative AI to produce fabricated legal authority. It unequivocally establishes an affirmative duty for attorneys to personally verify all citations, regardless of the source, and clarifies that ignorance of AI 'hallucinations' is not an acceptable defense. The ruling sends a strong message to the legal community regarding professional diligence and integrity, likely prompting attorneys and firms to implement rigorous verification protocols for AI-generated content and signaling increased judicial scrutiny of filings for such errors. This precedent will have significant implications for the ethical use of technology in legal practice and the standards of appellate advocacy.
