The Solari Institute · Reference · California · October 2026
The Cost of Unverified AI Output: California
In each of three recent California matters, authority that did not exist reached a court filing. What followed attached to the lawyer who signed it, to the firm that filed it, and to the license itself, and in none of them to the tool. The reference sets out the three matters on one page and, on the second, which California authority governs which AI question.
Open the referenceThree matters
Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.
(2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 426, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, certified for publication September 12, 2025
Counsel enhanced his own drafts with ChatGPT and ran them through other AI platforms to check for errors. Of 23 case quotations in the opening brief, 21 were fabricated, and he admitted he had not read the enhanced briefs before filing. The court held that no filing should contain a citation the responsible attorney has not personally read and verified, in California's first published opinion on the question.
$10,000 against counsel personally, with the opinion forwarded to the State Bar. On May 27, 2026 the Supreme Court imposed a one-year stayed suspension and one year of probation.
Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC
No. A174202, California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, certified for publication June 11, 2026
An opposition brief citing two cases that do not exist and at least eight fabricated quotations, drafted by an outside contract attorney. The firm was held responsible for a brief it outsourced and then signed, and the Court of Appeal added that attorneys "cannot delegate this responsibility to any form of technology."
$6,000, jointly and severally against the firm and three of its attorneys, who were also ordered to serve the decision on their client and on judges before whom they appear. The contract attorney was not sanctioned.
The State Bar of California
Office of Chief Trial Counsel, charges and stipulated discipline, 2026
Three further California attorneys before the State Bar over citations that did not exist or did not support the propositions advanced. Charges against two were filed in March and April 2026 and have not been decided. The third stipulated to discipline on April 6, 2026.
A one-year stayed suspension, one year of probation, ten hours of technology-focused continuing legal education, and a 30-day actual suspension, served from August 7 to September 8, 2026.
Which California authority governs which AI question
A California attorney using AI answers to four sources of authority at once, issued by different bodies and enforced by different people. What separates them in practice is when each one bites.
Statute
Senate Bill 574 (Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026), operative January 1, 2027, adds Business and Professions Code section 6068.1. An attorney may not delegate the practice of law to AI, must restrict access to confidential information entered into a system, must take reasonable steps to verify outputs, including all citations, and must disclose use to the court, a duty whose scope is not yet settled.
Professional conduct
The State Bar of California's 2026 Practical Guidance on generative AI, approved May 14, 2026, applying Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.3 and 5.1 to 5.3. Verification runs to all work used in providing legal services, managerial lawyers should set and train on AI policies, and hourly billing must reflect time actually spent.
The courts
From January 1, 2027, Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(2) bars any citation in a filed paper that the responsible attorney has not personally verified, whatever its source. Rules of Court rule 10.430 required courts permitting AI use to adopt a policy by December 15, 2025, and individual judges' orders vary.
The client
Civil Rights Council regulations on automated decision systems under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, in effect since October 1, 2025; California Privacy Protection Agency rules on automated decision-making technology from January 1, 2027; and SB 947, operative July 1, 2027. These reach the businesses the attorney advises, not the attorney.
Instruments and authorities as of October 21, 2026. Proposed AI amendments to the comments of rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3 are not in force. Professional education, not advice on California law.
AGL USA-CA · AI Governance in Law, California Endorsement
The four layers, examined
AI Governance in Law: United States with the California Endorsement examines the duties above as they apply in California practice. It is approved by the State Bar of California for 9.25 hours of MCLE credit, including 1.50 hours of Legal Ethics and 0.75 hours of Prevention and Detection Competence (Single Activity Provider, provider number 21051). Self-study and online, with a scenario-based examination and a verifiable digital badge on passing.
Enrol in AGL USA-CARegistration and payment are completed on the Solari Institute course platform. Read the full credential page.