A California appeals court has fined Los Angeles attorney Amir Mostafavi $10,000 after he filed a brief riddled with fake case citations generated by ChatGPT.
The sanction, which appears to be the largest of its kind in the state, according to CalMatters and legal researcher Damien Charlotin, came after judges found that 21 of 23 quotes in Mostafavi’s appeal in the opening brief were fabricated. The published opinion warns that no court filing should contain citations that an attorney has not personally verified.
Court calls filing ‘frivolous’ and a waste of time
The 2nd District Court of Appeal said Mostafavi’s filing broke court rules and amounted to a frivolous appeal. The judges also faulted him for wasting the court’s time and taxpayer resources.
Their opinion, issued 10 days ago, outlined how the submission was laced with fabricated material and stressed that attorneys must ensure every citation is authentic.
Mostafavi’s penalty appears to be the most costly fine issued by a California state court against an attorney over AI-generated text.
The panel certified the opinion for publication as a warning, making clear that courts will not tolerate unverified material presented as legal authority.
In May, a US district court judge in California ordered two law firms to pay $31,100 in fees over “bogus AI-generated research,” saying they nearly cited fabricated material in an order and that “strong deterrence is needed.”
Mostafavi used ChatGPT to ‘improve’ appeal draft
Mostafavi told the court he wrote the appeal himself, then turned to ChatGPT in hopes of improving the draft. He acknowledged that he did not review the output before submitting it and stated that he was unaware that the program would insert case citations or fabricate material.
He told CalMatters it is unrealistic to expect lawyers to abandon AI tools, comparing their rise to the way online databases replaced law libraries. Until the technology stops producing false information, he said attorneys should proceed with caution.
“I’m paying the price,” Mostafavi said, warning that others could fall into the same trap.
Experts warn of growing wave of AI fabrications
Damien Charlotin, who tracks global cases of fake AI citations, told CalMatters that court filings containing fabricated case law have jumped from just a few a month to several a day. He explained that AI models are especially prone to hallucinating when asked to support complex legal arguments, a tendency that can lead to briefs being seeded with false material.
Legal scholars echoed that concern. UCLA’s Mark McKenna called relying on ChatGPT an “abdication of your responsibility as a party representing someone.” At the same time, Professor Andrew Selbst warned the technology is being “shoved down all our throats” in law schools and firms without serious consideration of consequences.”
Too high a price for errors
AI models have been known to generate false information, with independent tests finding hallucination rates even in basic, verifiable tasks. The trend suggests that accuracy in generative systems remains far from guaranteed so far.
“In the meantime we’re going to have some victims, we’re going to have some damages, we’re going to have some wreckages,” Mostafavi said after his sanction.
But when justice hangs in the balance, simply waiting for further AI developments is not enough. Allowing “some victims, some damages, and some wreckages” because of artificial intelligence is simply unacceptable.
Law firms are turning to artificial intelligence to handle tasks once reserved for junior associates. See how this shift is reshaping client services and redefining the role of legal professionals.
The post California Court Issues $10,000 ‘Warning’ Over Lawyer’s ChatGPT Brief appeared first on eWEEK.
No Responses