Incident Tracker / United States (state)
Cervantes v. Bianco, No. S295866 (Cal. Sept. 24, 2026)
·Supreme Court of California·US-STATERegulatory referral
In California, the state Supreme Court disapproved the improper use of AI tools in the Riverside County sheriff's briefing in a ballot-seizure writ case, after the law firm misquoted Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors to challenge standing. The firm apologised and withdrew the argument; the court referred the matter to the State Bar.
- Court
- Supreme Court of California
- Date
- 2026-09-24
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- AI tools (unspecified)
- Conduct
- In preliminary briefing for Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the law firm responsible challenged the petitioners' standing using misquoted passages from, and an incorrect statement of the holding in, Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432. The firm apologised and withdrew the standing argument; the court said improper use of AI tools apparently contributed to the error.
- Outcome
- Regulatory referral
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- State Bar of California: The Supreme Court referred the matter to the State Bar of California to determine whether discipline is warranted. No State Bar disposition has been published. (2026-09-24)
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-10-05
What was fabricated or misused
- Misquoted passages from Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432
- An incorrect recitation of the Supreme Court's holding in Common Cause, used to challenge the petitioners' standing
What the court said
“We disapprove of the improper use of artificial intelligence tools, which apparently contributed to the significant error that occurred here and remind counsel of attorneys’ professional duties of competence and candor to the court.”
“We also refer the matter to the State Bar of California to determine whether discipline is warranted.”
Timeline
- Supreme Court issued its opinion on the writ petition, disapproved the AI-affected standing argument and referred the matter to the State Bar.
Why this case matters
The referral comes from the state's highest court in a high-profile elections case, and it concerns a government respondent's lawyers rather than a self-represented party. The footnote does not name the responsible firm, and the opinion lists two firms for the sheriff, so the tracker does not attribute the error to either. The misquoted authority was one of the court's own precedents, which the court identified itself.
Practice note
Quotations from the forum court's own precedents should be checked against the official reports before filing, because that court will recognise a misquote. If a brief is found to contain AI-affected errors, withdrawing the argument and apologising did not prevent a referral to the State Bar here. Each argument in preliminary briefing needs the same checks as merits briefing.
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 24-CV-1099 (D.C. Ct. App.)2026-09-03 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Regulatory referralIn the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Deutsche Bank's appellee brief cited four nonexistent authorities after counsel used Google's generative AI search tool without verification. The court struck the brief, ref…
- JMOR Properties, LLC v. Artist Alley Townhomes, LLC, No. 4D2026-1787 (Fla. 4th DCA)2026-08-12 · Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal · Regulatory referralAfter dismissing a certiorari petition that cited a fabricated Fourth District decision, Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal considered counsel's show-cause response and imposed the sanction of referral to The Flo…
- Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 2D2024-1392 (Fla. 2d DCA)2026-08-21 · Florida Second District Court of Appeal · FineFlorida's Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a foreclosure-related declaratory judgment and, in a separate section citing the Charlotin database, fined appellant's counsel USD 1,500, awarded U.S. Bank its appellat…
- In re Faisal S. Ahmed (Minnesota attorney discipline)2026-08-21 · Supreme Court of Minnesota (stipulated attorney discipline) · SuspensionMinnesota lawyer Faisal Ahmed agreed to a 30-day suspension, approved by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, for a 2025 Hennepin County District Court memorandum that cited two nonexistent, AI-hallucinated decisions. Press…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Cervantes v. Bianco, No. S295866 (Cal. Sept. 24, 2026)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/cervantes-v-bianco (accessed 2026-10-05). Data: CC BY 4.0.