What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief attributes language about fees and prevailing party status to Gogri v. Jack in the Box Inc., but Gogri does not discuss fees or prevailing party status; court found this fabrication goes beyond paraphrase. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Opening brief quotes a hearing transcript passage presented as from this case but actually from DZCollections v. Abadi (RT 11/09/23); court found the quoted passage was from a different matter and portions were omitted. || False Quotes: Case Law | Brief attributes a condensed/reassembled quotation to Berman v. Bromberg that does not appear in the decision in that form; court compared actual text and found the brief's quote improperly compressed and misleading.

Details

"We disagree with respondent, however, that dismissing the appeal is an appropriate sanction for Farivar’s conduct. Our inherent authority to impose this sanction “should be exercised only in extreme situations, such as where the conduct was clear and deliberate and no lesser sanction would remedy the situation.” (Crawford v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1265, 1271.) We conclude that we can sufficiently address the prejudice to the parties and the court from [Counsel]’s sanctionable conduct and sufficiently achieve the deterrent purpose of sanctions (see, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subds. (b)(2), (c) & (h)) by doing the following:First, [Counsel] shall pay sanctions in the amount of $7,500 to the clerk of this court within 30 days after the remittitur is filed. We calculate this amount based on, inter alia: (1) the significant amount of time this court spent verifying the fabricated citations in the opening brief, and (2) that Farivar refused to accept responsibility for his conduct, instead characterizing the fabricated quotations and citations as mere “clerical citation errors” and continuing to misrepresent legal authority in his opposition to the sanctions motion.Second, we strike appellant’s opening brief and require appellant to file, within 10 days of the issuance of this order,a corrected opening brief. Appellant’s corrected brief may differ from the version originally filed only to the extent it corrects or omits the fabricated citations and quotations in the original version. Appellant shall file and serve both a final version of the new brief as well as a redline version.Finally, because we conclude attorney Farivar has violated a Rule of Professional Conduct, we are required to “take appropriate corrective action.” (Cal. Code Jud. Ethics,canon 3D(2).) In line with this obligation, we direct the clerk of the court to serve a copy of this order on the State Bar.We acknowledge and have considered that, as appellant argues, the majority of the fabricated quotes in the opening brief do not appear to be misrepresentations that work to appellant’s advantage; that is, the brief does not represent the law to be more favorable to appellant’s arguments than it actually is.Nonetheless, we must consider broader concerns about the integrity of the courts and the legal profession. Inaccurate citations in briefing—whether the result of technological hallucinations or human failure to verify—may be relied on in court decisions, “circulated, believed, and become ‘fact’ and ‘law’ in some minds. We all must guard against those instances. . . . ‘There is no room in our court system for the submission of fake,10hallucinated case citations, facts, or law. . . . ’ [Citation.]” (Noland, supra, 114 Cal.App.5th at pp. 448-449.)"

Sanction teardown · CA California, USA · 2025-12-01

Peiman Shayan v. Ebby Shakib

What happened

In CA California, USA, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

Misrepresented (Case Law)

Brief attributes language about fees and prevailing party status to Gogri v. Jack in the Box Inc., but Gogri does not discuss fees or prevailing party status; court found this fabrication goes beyond paraphrase.
Fabricated (Exhibits & Submissions)

Opening brief quotes a hearing transcript passage presented as from this case but actually from DZCollections v. Abadi (RT 11/09/23); court found the quoted passage was from a different matter and portions were omitted.
False Quotes (Case Law)

Brief attributes a condensed/reassembled quotation to Berman v. Bromberg that does not appear in the decision in that form; court compared actual text and found the brief's quote improperly compressed and misleading.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Brief struck; Monetary sanction; Bar Referral (monetary penalty: 7500 USD.)

Additional detail

"We disagree with respondent, however, that dismissing the appeal is an appropriate sanction for Farivar’s conduct. Our inherent authority to impose this sanction “should be exercised only in extreme situations, such as where the conduct was clear and deliberate and no lesser sanction would remedy the situation.” (Crawford v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1265, 1271.) We conclude that we can sufficiently address the prejudice to the parties and the court from [Counsel]’s sanctionable conduct and sufficiently achieve the deterrent purpose of sanctions (see, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subds. (b)(2), (c) & (h)) by doing the following:First, [Counsel] shall pay sanctions in the amount of $7,500 to the clerk of this court within 30 days after the remittitur is filed. We calculate this amount based on, inter alia: (1) the significant amount of time this court spent verifying the fabricated citations in the opening brief, and (2) that Farivar refused to accept responsibility for his conduct, instead characterizing the fabricated quotations and citations as mere “clerical citation errors” and continuing to misrepresent legal authority in his opposition to the sanctions motion.Second, we strike appellant’s opening brief and require appellant to file, within 10 days of the issuance of this order,a corrected opening brief. Appellant’s corrected brief may differ from the version originally filed only to the extent it corrects or omits the fabricated citations and quotations in the original version. Appellant shall file and serve both a final version of the new brief as well as a redline version.Finally, because we conclude attorney Farivar has violated a Rule of Professional Conduct, we are required to “take appropriate corrective action.” (Cal. Code Jud. Ethics,canon 3D(2).) In line with this obligation, we direct the clerk of the court to serve a copy of this order on the State Bar.We acknowledge and have considered that, as appellant argues, the majority of the fabricated quotes in the opening brief do not appear to be misrepresentations that work to appellant’s advantage; that is, the brief does not represent the law to be more favorable to appellant’s arguments than it actually is.Nonetheless, we must consider broader concerns about the integrity of the courts and the legal profession. Inaccurate citations in briefing—whether the result of technological hallucinations or human failure to verify—may be relied on in court decisions, “circulated, believed, and become ‘fact’ and ‘law’ in some minds. We all must guard against those instances. . . . ‘There is no room in our court system for the submission of fake,10hallucinated case citations, facts, or law. . . . ’ [Citation.]” (Noland, supra, 114 Cal.App.5th at pp. 448-449.)"

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1110/Shayan_v._Shakib_USA_1_December_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).