The Rule of Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing is that attorneys bear ultimate responsibility for the accuracy and reliability of briefs they file with the court and cannot avoid sanctions by delegating work to contract attorneys who use fabricated AI-generated citations and false quotations, under circumstances where the opposition contained non-existent case citations, fabricated quotations, and blatant misrepresentations of controlling authority.
Appeal from sanctions order in San Francisco County Superior Court.
Defendant Appellants were Kevin A. Lipeles, Thomas Schelly, Jasmine Badawi, and Lipeles Law Group, APC — the attorneys sanctioned for filing an opposition brief containing AI-generated fabricated citations and quotations in opposition to a motion to stay.
Defendant Respondents were Harbor Distributing, LLC, et al. — the defendants who moved to stay the San Francisco action due to a previously filed substantially identical Los Angeles action by the same law firm.
The suit sounded in wage and hour violations under California labor law and PAGA claims. The controversy centered on LLG filing substantially duplicative class actions in two different counties against the same defendants.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were LLG filed a class action in Los Angeles County in June 2024, then filed a substantially identical class action in San Francisco County in December 2024 with 8 of 9 overlapping causes of action. When Harbor moved to stay the San Francisco action, LLG filed an opposition containing non-existent case citations, fabricated quotations, and serious misrepresentations of controlling authority, apparently created using generative AI by contract attorney James Sansone.
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted Harbor's motion to stay and issued an Order to Show Cause regarding sanctions, then imposed sanctions of $5,000 payable to Harbor and $1,000 payable to the court against LLG jointly and severally, ruling that LLG's conduct constituted serious violations of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b) and professional conduct rules.
The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the court violated the "safe harbor" provision in section 128.7(c)(2) by not providing 21 days to withdraw the opposition 2. Whether LLG's conduct merited the sanctions imposed 3. Whether sanctions payable to the opposing party were proper under section 128.7
The Appellate Court held that attorneys cannot avoid responsibility for filed pleadings by delegating work to contract attorneys, and filing briefs with fabricated AI-generated citations and false quotations violates professional duties and section 128.7, warranting sanctions, even when the attorney of record did not personally use AI but failed to verify the accuracy of citations and quotations before filing.
The case is inapplicable when the attorney personally verifies all citations and quotations in filed pleadings, when procedural objections to sanctions are timely raised in the trial court, or when the underlying legal arguments have merit rather than being groundless.
The case leaves open questions regarding the specific procedures courts must follow when issuing sanctions for AI-generated misconduct, the extent of due diligence required when working with contract attorneys, and whether different sanctions standards apply when contract attorneys rather than attorneys of record directly use AI tools.
Counsel
For Appellant: Lipeles Law Group, APC, Julian B. Bellenghi
For Respondent: Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Sean T. Strauss, Michael W. Kopp, David D. Jacobson