What happened in Noland v. Land of the Free?
Sylvia Noland sued the owners of properties where she had worked as a leasing agent, bringing wage and other employment claims. The trial court ruled against her on summary judgment, meaning it decided the case without a trial. She appealed.
The appeal itself was ordinary. What made it newsworthy was the briefing. Her lawyer had used generative AI tools to help write the briefs and did not read the cases the tools cited. The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, found that the opening brief contained 23 case quotations and 21 of them were fabricated. The reply brief had many more. Some cited cases did not say what the brief claimed. A few did not exist.
On September 12, 2025, the court affirmed the ruling against the client and issued an order no lawyer wants to read. It:
- ordered the attorney to pay $10,000 in sanctions to the court;
- directed the clerk to send the opinion to the State Bar; and
- ordered the attorney to serve a copy of the opinion on his own client.
The court explained that no California court had yet addressed fake AI citations, so it published the opinion “as a warning.” Its core statement: “no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations—whether provided by generative AI or any other source—that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified.”
The court also declined to award fees to the other side. Their lawyers had not caught the fake citations and appeared to learn about them only when the court raised the issue. That detail matters. Courts expect every lawyer in the case to read what gets filed.
Why isn’t “the AI did it” a defense?
Because the duties belong to the lawyer, not the software. None of them are new.
- Competence. Rule 1.1 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct requires competent work, and its official comment includes keeping up with the benefits and risks of relevant technology.
- Candor to the court. Rule 3.3 bars lawyers from knowingly making false statements of law or fact to a court. A lawyer who never checks a citation cannot vouch for it.
- The signature. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, a lawyer who signs a filing certifies that its legal arguments are supported by existing law or a good-faith argument to change it.
- Supervision. Rules 5.1 and 5.3 make managing lawyers responsible for how associates and staff do their work, including the tools they use.
The lawyer in Noland told the court he had not been aware that AI tools often fabricate legal sources. The court still imposed sanctions. Not knowing is itself the problem.
What has happened since Noland? (New in 2026)
When I wrote the original version of this piece in November 2025, Noland was the headline. It turned out to be the start.
More sanctions in the Court of Appeal. Three weeks after Noland, the Fourth Appellate District, Division One, decided People v. Alvarez (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1115. It sanctioned an attorney $1,500 for a brief with fabricated and misquoted authority and notified the State Bar. The court said lawyers may use AI but must check every citation.
The California Supreme Court stepped in. In January 2026, in Kjoller v. Superior Court, the Supreme Court directed the Third Appellate District to issue an order to show cause about possible sanctions over a prosecutor’s brief alleged to cite fabricated authority. That inquiry involving the Nevada County District Attorney’s office was still underway as of August 2026. AI accountability applies to government lawyers too.
The State Bar began prosecuting. In April 2026, the State Bar announced disciplinary charges against two attorneys over AI-generated fake citations. A third attorney agreed to a stipulated discipline that includes a 30-day actual suspension, probation and technology-focused legal education, subject to California Supreme Court review. Charges are allegations until proven. But the message from the State Bar’s Chief Trial Counsel was direct: lawyers remain fully responsible for verifying their work.
Proposed ethics rule changes. In March 2026, the State Bar opened public comment on proposed AI commentary to six ethics rules. The proposed comment to Rule 3.3 would say expressly that lawyers must verify the existence and accuracy of every authority they cite, including authority generated with AI. Public comment closed May 4, 2026. Any change requires California Supreme Court approval.
A bill to write the Noland rule into law. Senate Bill 574 cleared the Legislature in August 2026. It would amend section 128.7 so that court filings may not contain citations the responsible attorney has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative AI. It would also bar attorneys from delegating the practice of law to AI. It reached the Governor’s desk on September 9, 2026. As of late September 2026, no signature or veto had been reported.
Why does lawyer accountability protect clients?
It is easy to read these cases as lawyers policing lawyers. They are more than that.
Your case rides on your lawyer’s credibility. Judges read hundreds of briefs. A lawyer caught citing fake law loses the court’s trust, and that loss follows the client’s case.
You deserve to know. The Noland court made the lawyer hand the opinion to his own client. California law already requires lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments. A sanction for fabricated authority is one.
Shortcuts cost real people. In a personal injury case, the brief might decide whether an injured person gets a trial or whether a wrongful death claim survives. A rule demanding that a human read every case is a rule that protects that person.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers should welcome these rules. The families we represent are up against insurers with deep pockets and large legal teams. Our advantage is preparation and credibility. Unchecked AI puts both at risk.
What this means for you
If you have a case in court, you are entitled to ask how your filings are prepared. Useful questions:
- Who is the attorney responsible for my court filings?
- Does that attorney read every case cited before anything is filed?
- Does the firm have a written policy on AI use and review?
- Will you tell me right away if a court raises any concern about a filing in my case?
At TORKLAW, a licensed attorney is responsible for every filing that goes to a court. That is the standard Noland set. It should be the floor for every firm. For more on how cases move forward, see our article on policy-limit demands and bad faith or our publications page.
Frequently asked questions
Can a lawyer use AI to write court filings in California?
Yes. No California rule bans it. But the lawyer must personally read and verify every citation and remains fully responsible for everything filed.
What happens if my lawyer files fake AI citations?
The court can sanction the lawyer, strike the brief or refer the lawyer to the State Bar. In Noland, the lawyer paid $10,000 and had to give his client a copy of the opinion. The client also lost the appeal on the merits.
Who pays an AI sanction, the lawyer or the client?
In Noland and Alvarez, the courts ordered the attorneys to pay. If a lawyer’s error harms your case, talk to an independent lawyer about your options.
Is SB 574 law?
Not yet, as of late September 2026. It passed the Legislature and was awaiting the Governor’s action. The core duty to verify citations already applies under existing rules and Noland.