AI-sanctions might get eyeballs, but the bigger sanctions are still for plain old bad lawyering. Jeff also raises this ethical and pragmatic question: who defends the lawyer when sanctions threaten the client? Should counsel facing an OSC retain separate counsel for the sanctions component to avoid divided attention and better protect client interests? What if the costs of independent counsel are likely to exceed the sanction?
- $25K for using Anti-SLAPP as a litigation weapon. A bare-bones anti-SLAPP was amplified by record emails suggesting the strategy was to inflict cost and pain rather than win on the merits.
- $13K for relitigating the merits through a fee appeal. The appeal purported to challenge fees, but largely recycled arguments already rejected in the prior appeal. The court finds the effort both objectively meritless and subjectively aimed at rehashing settled ground.
- <$2K for fabricated authority & thin explanations. Schlichter v. Kennedy results in $1,750 against an attorney who relied on nonexistent or inapposite citations and offered credibility-challenged explanations about verification methods. After the court’s exhaustive point-by-point teardown, the monetary sanction seems merciful.
- Pro per’s sanction is dismissal of appeal. In Arno Kuglua v. Young Park, the Court of Appeal dismisses an appeal for failure to support arguments with proper authority.
Also: AI guidance from the courts**:** The California Courts of Appeal publish user-facing AI guidance emphasizing verification, independent source-checking, and personal accountability for filings—even if AI assists with drafting.
