First come AI court sanctions, then come disciplinary referrals, investigations, and actions

Issue 58 

Sanctions for AI hallucinations in court filings have consistently made the news for years now. French attorney Damien Charlotin’s database of legal decisions involving AI hallucinations currently catalogs over 900 instances in U.S. courts. Most attorneys recognize that AI hallucinations in court filings can lead to sanctions and professional embarrassment, but less attention has been paid to what can come next. Now, a growing number of attorneys who have been sanctioned for AI-related errors are experiencing a second wave of consequences for their actions, in the form of disciplinary referrals, investigations, and/or actions. 

State Bar of California Disciplinary Action 

For example, in April 2023, a California law firm representing landlords submitted a filing in an eviction matter in Los Angeles County Superior Court that included hallucinations.[i] The filing contained citations to two fictitious cases, as well as citations to other cases that were not relevant to eviction law.[ii] A supervising attorney and subsequent case filings from the firm represented to the court that a first-year attorney had prepared the filing, which was ultimately signed by the named owner of the firm, but that the first-year attorney did not verify the accuracy of the filing.[iii] At a hearing on sanctions, the tenant’s attorney inquired why the named owner of the firm, as the attorney who signed the filing, was not present at the hearing.[iv]  

The Hon. Ian Fusselman concluded that the named owner of the firm bore responsibility for signing the pleading, and the supervising attorney bore responsibility for reviewing the document.[v] The Hon. Ian Fusselman sanctioned the firm for a violation of California’s Business and Professions Code and ordered the firm to pay $999 to the tenant’s attorney’s firm, which was reportedly $1 below the threshold that would have required reporting the sanction to the State Bar of California for possible disciplinary action.[vi]  

Despite the fact that the court’s sanction was under the reporting threshold, on March 12, 2026, the State Bar of California filed a notice of disciplinary charges against the named owner of the firm.[vii] In relation to the 2023 hallucinations matter, the notice included charges of failure to perform with diligence, and acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption.[viii]  

This California attorney is not the only attorney who has become the subject of a disciplinary board referral, investigation, or potential disciplinary action in the wake of AI-related errors. A few other examples of AI-related disciplinary board referrals, investigations, and actions are detailed below.  

New Mexico Referral 

A New Mexico attorney was sanctioned after filing a response that cited numerous cases that opposing counsel were unable to locate.[ix] The attorney explained he’d hired a freelance attorney to write a response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (in relation to a habeas petition), and did not read or verify the cases before he signed and filed the brief.[x] The Court found that the New Mexico attorney violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 by submitting the contract attorney’s work without verifying the accuracy and by submitting a brief containing fake citations.[xi] In addition to monetary and other sanctions, the New Mexico attorney was ordered to self-report to his state bar disciplinary boards and to report the contract attorney to her state bar disciplinary board.[xii]  

Pennsylvania Referral 

Additionally, a Pennsylvania attorney was sanctioned for filing a brief including two incorrect citations.[xiii] The attorney claimed that he was tired during his final proofread of the filing and also made an excuse that different members of his firm used different search engines.[xiv] The Court expressed concern that the attorney was silent as to why one of the citations included a case name, number, and citation that each referred to a different actual case and together constituted a non-existent citation, and noted that it was unconvinced by the attorney’s explanations.[xv]  Further, the Court noted that both citations appeared to be AI-generated, and that the attorney had not made a statement about the use of AI, despite the Court’s Standing Order on AI.[xvi] 

The Court imposed three non-monetary sanctions: 

1. The Clerk of Court was ordered to serve a copy of the memorandum and order on the attorney’s member bar associations; 
2. The attorney’s appearance in the case was stricken with prejudice; and 
3. The attorney was ordered to inform his client of the sanctions and that if she chose to refile her case, she would be required to find new counsel.[xvii] 

Nebraska Referral, Investigation, and Action 

As a final example, a Nebraska attorney representing the former husband in an appeal of a dissolution action filed a brief containing numerous citations to hallucinated cases, real cases with fake quotes and mischaracterized holdings, and statutes and court rules with hallucinated quotations.[xviii] The former husband’s attorney denied using AI to draft the brief.[xix] The Nebraska Supreme Court sanctioned the attorney by striking the former husband’s brief, dismissing the appeal, and leaving the door open for former wife’s attorney to file for an award of attorney fees.[xx] Additionally, the Court referred the former husband’s attorney to the Nebraska Counsel for Discipline for an investigation.[xxi]  

The Nebraska Counsel for Discipline recommended that the former husband’s attorney be temporarily suspended from practicing law.[xxii] In response to the recommendation of temporary suspension, the former husband's attorney sent an affidavit to the Nebraska Supreme Court, in which he admitted to using AI to write the brief.[xxiii] On April 15, 2026, the Nebraska Supreme Court suspended the attorney from practicing law until further notice of the court, and indicated that a full investigation and disciplinary hearing will take place.[xxiv]  

How to Reduce Your AI Hallucination Risks as an Attorney 

Attorneys who use AI tools that could produce hallucinations bear the responsibility to verify the accuracy of their filings. Additionally, attorneys must recognize that they can also be exposed to the AI risks of others. As illustrated by the California and New Mexico cases described above, attorneys who sign filings without verifying the contents can be blindsided by the improper AI use of their collaborators.  

Lawyers who intend to continue practicing law in the age of AI must develop AI competency in order to identify and mitigate AI risks. If you want a resource that can help you develop your AI competency and AI strategy more quickly, check out A Lawyer’s Practical Guide to AI. 

Thanks for being here. 

Jennifer Ballard 
Good Journey Consulting  

[i]  David Wagner, This Prolific LA Eviction Law Firm Was Caught Faking Cases In Court. Did They Misuse AI?, LAist (Oct. 12, 2023 5:00 PDT) https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/dennis-block-chatgpt-artificial-intelligence-ai-eviction-court-los-angeles-lawyer-sanction-housing-tenant-landlord. This article notes that the court threw out the landlord’s lawsuit, concluding that the filing appeared to be frivolous, and that the eviction case is now sealed, which is reportedly typical in California when a tenant is the prevailing party. 

[ii] Id. 

[iii] Id. 

[iv] Id. 

[v] Id. 

[vi] Id. 

[vii] Notice of Disciplinary Charges at 2-3, In the Matter of Dennis Paul Block, No. SBC-26-O-30276 (The State Bar Ct. of Ca. filed Mar. 12, 2026). 

[viii] Id. The notice also included additional charges unrelated to the hallucinations matter. 

[ix] Memorandum Opinion and Order on Sanctions and Other Disciplinary Action at 1, 3, Dehghani v. Castro, No. 2:24-cv-00052 (D.N.M. filed Jan. 16, 2025).  

[x] Id. at 3-4. 

[xi] Id. at 8. 

[xii] Id. at 10-11. 

[xiii] Memorandum Re: Motion to Dismiss and Sanctions at 1, 11, 14, Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. et al., No. 25-cv-00576 (E.D. Pa. removed to Fed. Ct. Feb. 3, 2025). 

[xiv] Id. at 12. 

[xv] Id. 

[xvi] Id. at n.10. 

[xvii] Id. at 13-14. 

[xviii] Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38 at 45 (2026). 

[xix] Id. at 44. 

[xx] Id. at 56. 

[xxi] Id. at 55. 

[xxii] Brian Mastre, Nebraska attorney faces suspension over alleged AI use in state Supreme Court Brief, Wow 6 News (Apr. 8, 2026 20:37 PDT) https://www.wowt.com/2026/04/09/nebraska-attorney-faces-suspension-over-alleged-ai-use-state-supreme-court-brief/. 

[xxiii] Brian Mastre, Nebraska Supreme Court suspends Omaha attorney over AI use, Wow 6 News (Apr. 15, 2026 20:26 PDT) https://www.wowt.com/2026/04/16/nebraska-supreme-court-suspends-omaha-attorney-over-ai-use/. 

[xxiv] Id.