In re Marriage of Muriel and Farris

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

However, we award appellate attorney fees to Rebekah under RAP 18.9(a) for her time spent reviewing and responding to Jonathan’s response brief. Here, Jonathan’s brief twice cites to Marriage of Sanjuan to support his arguments, but as Rebekah points out in her reply brief, no such case exists. We surmise that Jonathan used artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in writing his brief, which resulted in an “AI hallucination.”13 While Jonathan is entitled to use AI to write his response brief, he is still required to conduct a reasonable inquiry and confirm that the claims he advances are well-grounded in fact and in law. In re Estate of Little, 9 Wn. App. 2d 262, 274 n.4, 444 P.3d 23 (stating that “[w]e hold a pro se litigant to the same standard as an attorney”), review denied, 194 Wn.2d 1006 (2019). In citing to a hallucinated case, Jonathan has submitted a frivolous filing that “is so totally devoid of merit.” A.T., 11 Wn. App. 2d at 171. Accordingly, we award Rebekah appellate attorney fees for time spent reviewing and responding to Jonathan’s response brief in an amount to be determined by the commissioner pursuant to RAP 18.1(f).

Authorities cited in the passage: Marriage of Sanjuan · RAP 18.9(a) · In re Estate of Little, 9 Wn. App. 2d 262 (2019) · A.T., 11 Wn. App. 2d 156 · RAP 18.1(f)