Tovar v. American Automatic Fire Suppression Inc., decided Oct. 3 by San Diego County Superior Court Judge Carolyn M. Caietti, declined to impose sanctions on defendant’s lawyers, because the plaintiff hadn’t complied with certain procedural rules, but added:
Notwithstanding the denial on procedural grounds, the Court is deeply troubled by the conduct of Defense counsel. Defendants admitted to submitting authority that was miscited, non-existent or inapposite…. “Simply stated, 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.” … [A] party’s citation to fabricated legal authorities violate[] “a basic duty counsel owed to his client and the court” ….
One of Defendants’ most recent motions contain both citations to cases that do not appear to exist and factual misrepresentations. On July 23, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to compel an independent medical examination of Plaintiff. There is a citation to a case that does not exist and a citation that does not stand for the premise asserted.
In addition, Attorney Woods’ supporting declaration contained [non-AI-related] misrepresentations to the Court. [Details omitted. -EV]
Defendants also cite to a Notice of Errata filed in relation to the IME motion as having cured any false citations or misrepresentations. While the Notice of Errata removed citations to two of the cases cited, it more so “corrected” other citations to repealed statutes. It also minimized the citations to “clerical errors” that did not alter the substance of the legal argument presented. A stark contrast to the position taken by Defendants now.
Despite Attorney Leonard and Olson’s acceptance of responsibility, Defendants and their counsel still attempt to shift blame on Plaintiff, which is inappropriate and not persuasive. Plaintiff’s theory of the case, “tenor,” correspondence etc. plainly did not cause Defendants to submit to the Court miscited authority, fake case citations and factual misrepresentations. For the record, while the Court accepts the apologies it made, it does not approve of Defendants and their counsel’s course of conduct admitted to in this matter.
All of this conduct is contrary to the rules of professional responsibility and is the type of conduct that erodes trust in the legal profession. One of the attorneys is a member of the respected ABOTA organization which prides itself on “civility, integrity and professionalism” as well as to protect the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. This conduct runs afoul of this noble standard that frankly all attorneys and those in the legal profession should practice each day.
This is hopefully an experience that will never be repeated by the attorneys involved in this matter, let alone others in the profession….
I e-mailed the firm for a statement, and a spokesperson responded that, “As the Court noted,” the firm “accepts responsibility for our obligation to present the highest quality work product to the Court. At this technological inflection point for the legal industry, we remain committed to our policy of responsible and ethical advocacy, even and especially when AI is involved.”
