Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (state)

Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon, No. E085566 (Cal. Ct. App.)

·California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two·US-STATESanctions

The California Court of Appeal sanctioned self-represented appellants in Varma after their opening brief used nonexistent cases, false quotations and unsupported propositions the court attributed to generative AI hallmarks. The court ordered them to pay respondent's appellate fees in an amount to be set by the trial court and sent the opinion to the State Bar.

Court
California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two
Date
2026-08-27
Who used the AI
Litigant in person
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
Self-represented appellants filed an opening brief containing nonexistent cases, false quotations and unsupported propositions. The court attributed those features to generative AI hallmarks, sanctioned the appellants by ordering them to pay respondent's appellate attorney fees, and remanded for the trial court to set the amount.
Outcome
Sanctions
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
State Bar of California: The court directed the clerk to send a copy of the opinion to the State Bar for investigation of possible unauthorized practice of law related to the opening brief. No disciplinary disposition is yet on record. (2026-08-27)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-04

What was fabricated or misused

  • West Covina Healthcare v. Superior Court (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1241 — appears not to exist
  • Bock v. Hughes (1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 613 — appears not to exist
  • Tate v. Progressive Comm. Ins. Co. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 998 — appears not to exist
  • Rappaport v. Gelfand (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 611 — appears not to exist
  • “The court’s authority is confined to the limits established by statute” (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) — quotation did not appear in the case
  • “Where a party is legally bound to speak and remains silent, such silence is deemed as acquiescence” (U.S. v. Tweel (1977) 550 F.2d 297) — quotation did not appear in the case
  • “Where a party has, with knowledge of the facts, acquiesced in a transaction or has remained silent when he ought to have spoken, equity will estop him from later asserting a claim” (Strong v. County of Santa Cruz (1975) 15 Cal.3d 720) — quotation did not appear in the case
  • “[A] party who fails to timely raise an objection or file an answer is barred from opposing entry of judgment” (Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448) — quotation did not appear in the case
  • “A court may not rewrite a complaint to add allegations” (Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242) — quotation did not appear in the case
  • “The law must give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly” (FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2009) 556 U.S. 502) — quotation did not appear in the case
  • “If judges could add to statutes to fix what they see as mistakes, statutes would mean whatever judges say, not what Congress enacted” (Pereira v. Sessions (2018) 585 U.S. 198) — quotation did not appear in the case
  • six propositions attributed to existing cases — the court said the cases did not support them, including three propositions attributed to Edelstein v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 29 Cal.4th 164, 171-172

What the court said

“the Varmas’ opening brief contained citations to cases that do not exist, citations to cases that do not stand for the proposition cited, and quotations that do not appear in the authorities cited.”
California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, p. 2
“Like attorneys, pro se litigants are free to use generative AI to assist in drafting briefs but must check every citation to ensure that the cited authority exists, that it supports the proposition for which it is cited, and that quotations are accurate.”
California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, p. 10
“The Varmas do not deny that their brief contained the citations to four nonexistent cases, the seven fabricated quotations, and the six unsupported propositions that we identified in the order to show cause.”
California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, p. 22
“As self-represented litigants who signed the brief, the Varmas were solely and exclusively responsible for the contents of the brief.”
California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, p. 22

Timeline

  1. Trial court denied the petition for entry of default administrative judgment and damages.
  2. California Supreme Court denied review after writ denial.
  3. Varmas filed the notice of appeal.
  4. Varmas filed a new opening brief after the first was struck.
  5. Varmas filed the corrected opening brief signed by both appellants.
  6. Court issued tentative opinion warning about fabricated authority.
  7. Court affirmed, imposed appellate-fee sanctions and referred possible unauthorized practice.

Why this case matters

Varma extends California’s AI-authority sanctions beyond lawyers to self-represented appellants who signed a brief prepared with outside help. Unlike Noland, which imposed a fixed $10,000 sanction on counsel, this opinion ordered the pro se appellants to pay the respondent’s appellate attorney fees and sent the opinion to the State Bar over possible unauthorized practice by the nonlawyer drafter. The detail on identical language across related appeals also shows how one AI-generated brief template can affect several cases.

Practice note

A self-represented appellant who uses drafting help must still verify the brief line by line before signing it. Check that each case exists, each quotation appears in the cited opinion and each cited holding supports the proposition. If a tentative opinion flags fabricated authority, move promptly to withdraw or correct the brief.

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

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon, No. E085566 (Cal. Ct. App.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/varma-v-bank-of-new-york-mellon (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →