Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
A federal judge in Los Angeles sanctioned a lawyer $5,000 under Rule 11 for filing an opposition brief his clients drafted with ChatGPT without finishing reading it or verifying its citations, and held that a prefatory disclaimer of counsel's role did not move the duty
The lawyer's defense was that he only facilitated a filing his clients directed. The court read Rule 11 as attaching to the signature, whoever held the pen, and ordered money, an ethics course and a notice to the State Bar.
Bottom line: A binding order in this case only. A single district judge's sanctions order is not precedent for other courts, and we do not suggest otherwise. It does show how one federal court applies Rule 11 and its own AI-disclosure standing order when a lawyer files AI-drafted work he did not check.
Who this affects: Litigators in federal court, qui tam relator counsel, and lawyers asked by a client to file a client-drafted brief. Also substituted or successor counsel who inherit a record containing AI-generated filings.
Issue date: Signed 23 October 2026 by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. Payment of the $5,000 and the State Bar notice are due by 30 November 2026. The ethics coursework is due by 8 February 2027.
What changed: No new rule. The court applied Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and a standing order requiring a separate declaration whenever generative AI is used for any portion of a filing, and it imposed a $5,000 sanction on one lawyer.
Analysis: The non-obvious point is the disclaimer. Counsel added a Prefatory Remark saying his role was limited to facilitating the filing. The court said the remark did not, and could not, disclaim obligations that attach to signing and filing, and read it as a sign he knew he could not make the Rule 11 certification. Our inference: a disclaimer is evidence of knowledge, not a shield.
Primary sources: Order Granting Motions to Dismiss and Imposing Sanctions, C.D. Cal., 23 October 2026 (PDF, Charlotin database copy)
- Instrument (EN)
- Order Granting Motions to Dismiss [Dkt. Nos. 117, 120] and Imposing Sanctions, United States ex rel. Phillips v. Los Angeles Film School LLC
- Case number
- 2:24-cv-05214-SB-RAO
- Authority
- United States District Court, Central District of California; Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
- Jurisdiction
- United States, federal court
- Status
- The order says a final judgment will be entered separately. We did not check for that judgment or for any appeal.
- Bindingness
- Binds the parties and counsel before the court. Not precedent for other courts.
- Sanction
- $5,000 on Mark Kleiman, a State Bar notice with the order attached, and at least eight hours of MCLE-accredited ethics coursework including one course on generative AI
- Issue date / next deadline
- 23 October 2026; payment and State Bar notice by 30 November 2026; coursework by 8 February 2027
- Editorial Note
- Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
- Primary source
- https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3380/U.S._ex_rel._Phillips_v._Los_Angeles_Film_School_United_States_23-10-2026.pdf
The filing and how it got there
The underlying case is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against two for-profit schools and individuals. The government declined to intervene, and the court had already dismissed the first amended complaint. The sanctions part of the order concerns the opposition to the motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On the order's account of the relators' declarations, which it calls largely uncontroverted, one relator used ChatGPT "to generate, and iterate on, the draft opposition." The relators sent counsel an outline and then a full draft, and chased him for review. At 8:37 a.m. on the day the opposition was due, counsel told them he had read 59 of the draft's 76 pages. That evening he filed it.
The court found he filed it unaltered and without verifying its citations. It describes the 76-page brief as cast largely in bullet points, citing almost no legal authority, with some of the authority it did cite fabricated or misrepresented. Counsel's own lawyer conceded at the hearing that the challenged citations either do not exist or do not support the propositions for which they were cited.
A disclaimer is not a certification
Before the brief, counsel inserted what the order calls a Prefatory Remark of Counsel. It said his role had been limited to facilitating the filing and that the filing was made to ensure the court had the materials counsel was directed to present.
The court's answer is short. The remark did not disclaim his obligations, and could not, because those obligations attach to the act of signing, filing, submitting or later advocating a paper. It cited the Ninth Circuit's Malkeet Lnu v. Blanche for the point that a signature is an attestation of personal review that is not conditional on the tools used to prepare a first draft. We have not opened that decision.
The court went further and read the remark itself as strong evidence that counsel knew he could not make the certification Rule 11 requires. It also rejected his argument that Rule 11 needs bad faith, stating that bad faith is not required for a violation or for sanctions.
The standing order the court enforced
The court's standing order, quoted in the order, requires any party who uses generative AI to generate any portion of a filing to attach a separate declaration disclosing the use and certifying that the filer has reviewed the source material and verified that the generated content is accurate and complies with Rule 11.
Counsel filed no such declaration, either at the outset or after he told defense counsel, six days after filing, that the relators had used AI. The court says he told opposing counsel but not the tribunal, and that it learned of the admission secondhand from the defendants' replies. A later notice of errata withdrawing two citations disclosed that the notice itself had been drafted with AI, but did not own up to the AI use behind the original errors.
Counsel told the court he had completely forgotten the AI-disclosure requirement. The court did not treat that as a defense.
The sanction and who was spared
The court said lesser sanctions were insufficient given counsel's experience, his history and conduct in the case, and what it called his incomplete acceptance of responsibility. It set $5,000 plus educational and notification requirements as the minimum that would deter repetition by him or by others similarly situated. The ordering paragraph adds a filing of proof of compliance.
It declined further sanctions under its inherent authority or Rule 16(f), and did not shift the defendants' fees, since dismissal had already given the defendants what their motions sought.
Co-counsel Pooja Rajaram was discharged from the show-cause order because she did no work on the filings at issue. The relators were also discharged. The court said the record could support sanctioning them, since they drafted the brief with ChatGPT and told counsel to file it, but it declined because their claims were dismissed and no further deterrence was needed.
What it did to the case itself
The sanction ran alongside a loss on the merits. The court denied the relators leave to file a third amended complaint or to rebrief the motions, finding no diligence under Rule 16(b), and granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice and without leave to amend.
On the client's side of the ledger, the court repeated the general rule that parties are bound by the deliberate acts of their chosen counsel. It noted the relators could not proceed without a lawyer in an FCA case, and said that made counsel's decision to file a brief he had not finished reading more serious, not less. Our reading: the court treated the no pro se rule as raising counsel's duty, not excusing it.
What we did not verify
We opened and read the full 30-page order from the Charlotin database copy, including the sanctions section and the ordering paragraphs. The text we extracted contains the case number 2:24-cv-05214-SB-RAO, the caption, the date 23 October 2026 and Judge Blumenfeld's signature block.
We did not open the docket, the show-cause order (Dkt. No. 168), the relators' declarations (Dkt. Nos. 171, 172), the hearing transcript (Dkt. No. 178), the standing order itself (Dkt. No. 7), or the Ninth Circuit decision in Malkeet Lnu v. Blanche. Everything we say about them is the district court's description. We did not locate a CourtListener or RECAP copy, and we did not confirm that this order is docket entry 181, as one aggregator listing suggests; the PDF text we read does not state its docket number.
An aggregator listing mentions a bar referral. The order we read does not refer counsel to the State Bar. It orders him to notify the State Bar of the sanction himself and attach the order. We make no claim about any disciplinary step beyond that. We did not check for an appeal, a motion for reconsideration, or whether the $5,000 has been paid.
A lawyer who signs a filing certifies it, and a note saying the client directed the contents does not change what the signature means. If a client hands you an AI-drafted brief on the eve of a deadline, the court, citing a concession by the lawyer's own counsel, pointed to two options: alert the court and seek relief, or withdraw well before the deadline. Check your own court's standing orders for an AI declaration before you file.
Source File
Open the order and confirm the case number 2:24-cv-05214-SB-RAO, the signature date 23 October 2026, Part IV.A for the 76-page opposition and counsel's admission that he had read 59 of its pages before filing, Part IV.B for the $5,000 and the Prefatory Remark discussion, and paragraph 6 of Part V for the deadlines.
Kleiman's signature on the brief was a certification that it complied with the requirements of Rule 11, when it plainly did not. ยท Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., C.D. Cal., 23 October 2026
FAQ
What exactly was sanctioned?
Filing, as counsel for the relators, a 76-page opposition brief that the relators had drafted with ChatGPT, without finishing it, altering it or verifying its citations, and without the AI declaration the court's standing order requires. The court imposed the sanction under Rule 11.
How much, and what else?
$5,000 paid to the clerk's fiscal section by 30 November 2026, a notice to the State Bar of California attaching the order by the same date, and at least eight hours of MCLE ethics coursework including a course on generative AI by 8 February 2027, with proof of compliance.
Did the relators or the other lawyer get sanctioned?
No. The court discharged the show-cause order as to co-counsel Pooja Rajaram, who did no work on the filings, and as to the relators, whose claims it dismissed. It said the record could have supported sanctioning the relators.
Is this a rule other courts have to follow?
No. It is one district court's order in one case. It applies Rule 11 and a local standing order, and cites other courts, so it is useful as an illustration of reasoning, not as binding authority elsewhere.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.