Fake AI Citations Produce Fines for California, Alabama Lawyers

Federal courts in California and Alabama have imposed thousands of dollars in fines against two attorneys sanctioned separately for including nonexistent legal citations generated by artificial intelligence in their filings.

The sanctions address a wave of AI hallucinations in litigation that’s growing despite training offered by bar associations, legal journal articles, and extensive media coverage of lawyers punished by courts for relying too much on the technology. In recent months, fake citations in federal court filings have resulted in $3,000 in fines for a New Jersey attorney, $1,500 in fines for a California attorney, and a warning for a New York attorney.

“Somehow the message still has not been hammered home as the epidemic of citing fake cases continues unabated,” Judge Terry F. Moorer of the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama said in an order issued Oct. 10. “It has become clear that basic reprimands and small fines are not sufficient to deter this type of misconduct because if it were, we would not be here.”

Moorer reprimanded and imposed $5,000 in sanctions against James A. Johnson of Loxley, Ala., for adding nonexistent legal citations in a motion in a criminal case that were discovered by his opposing counsel, the US Attorney’s Office.

Meanwhile, the Northern District of California imposed $1,000 in sanctions against Edward A. Quesada of Glendora, Calif., in a civil case for adding nonexistent and erroneous case citations in a brief. He’s also been ordered to take a continuing legal education course on using AI in the practice of law.

‘Honest Mistake’

Johnson used a generative AI program to draft his motion “which as a result contained fabricated citations that he failed to check prior to submitting the motion” on behalf of the defendant he had been appointed to defend, Moorer’s order said.

One of the fabrications cited caselaw reversed by the US Supreme Court over 40 years ago. Johnson blamed the “honest mistake” on a Microsoft Word plug-in called Ghostwriter Legal that he used to file his motion before the July 4 holiday weekend while he was providing post-surgery care for an out-of-state family member, according to the order.

Johnson must also file Moorer’s order in any pending case where he’s appeared as counsel, and in any future case he’s involved in for the next 12 months. His client—who showed a “look of shock, dismay, and display of emotion” at Johnson’s show cause hearing—told Moorer he wanted a new attorney even if it significantly delayed his trial on financial fraud charges.

“This is more than mere negligence or simple recklessness,” Moorer said. Johnson’s “failure to discharge the most basic of responsibilities of a lawyer” delayed the defendant’s right to prompt adjudication, cost additional public funds to appoint new defense counsel, and caused “a significant waste of time for the United States and the Court.”

In the California case, ordered to show why disciplinary actions shouldn’t be issued for the two nonexistent citations the court found found in his brief, Quesada said the court had missed a third fake case citation that he may have unintentionally copied from an “AI overview” found through a browser search, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín said in an order issued Oct 10.

Quesada also said he’d intended to delete the fake citations but “ran out of time” before filing. His failure to recognize how AI was used in his brief violated rules of professional conduct and “further suggests a failure to keep abreast of changes in relevant technology,” Martínez-Olguín said.

The cases are United States v. McGee, S.D. Ala., No. 1:24-cv-00112, 10/10/25 and Oneto v. Watson, N.D. Cal., No. 3:22-cv-05206, 10/10/25.