Judge fined claimants' lawyer $5,000 over ChatGPT-drafted brief citing a non-existent case in L.A. Film School suit
In a whistleblower False Claims Act suit against the Los Angeles Film School, one of the claimants used ChatGPT to draft an opposition brief. The brief cited a non-existent case and two real cases that did not support its arguments. Federal Judge Stanley Blumenfeld dismissed the suit with prejudice, finding that much of the alleged conduct fell outside the six-year statute of limitations. He fined the claimants' attorney $5,000 for filing the brief without disclosing that AI wrote it. The judge said the claimants were 'not blameless' but did not sanction them because they are not lawyers. The claimants' new counsel said they are considering an appeal.
What the AI did
One of the claimants used ChatGPT to draft an opposition brief that was filed in court. The brief cited a non-existent case, Darwich v. Department of Economic Security, and two real cases that did not support its arguments.
First reported October 26, 2026 · Added to the register November 3, 2026 · 1 source
- Deployer
- Dave Phillips
- Model
- ChatGPT
- When it happened
- Not stated in the sources
- First reported
- October 26, 2026
What this means for you
Could this affect you?
If you file or rely on court papers drafted with AI tools. Law firms and litigants who file AI-drafted court papers, especially client-prepared ones that counsel files without checking citations, could face the same sanctions.
What to check
- Require lawyers to read and verify every citation in AI-assisted filings.
- Disclose AI use in filings where courts require it.
- Do not file client-drafted AI briefs without a full review.
Areas of your AI programme this touches
Every fact and its source (5)
- RulingSuit dismissed with prejudice“Judge Stanley Blumenfeld dismissed the suit with prejudice”[1]
- Claimants not sanctionedNot sanctioned because not lawyers“elected not to sanction them because they are not lawyers”[1]
- Next stepClaimants considering appeal“they are considering an appeal”[1]
- Sanction imposed on attorney$5,000 fine on Mark Kleiman“imposed a $5,000 fine on attorney Mark Kleiman for submitting a brief without disclosing that it had been written by AI”[1]
- Fabricated citationNon-existent case Darwich v. Department of Economic Security“cited a non-existent case, Darwich v. Department of Economic Security”[1]
Sources
- L.A. Film School Fraud Suit Tossed as Lawyer Fined for AI Usevariety.com · October 26, 2026
How this record is classified. Severity M (2/5): harm to individuals, or a policy breach with limited reach. Evidence: Confirmed, meaning a company, official or court statement.
The facts in At a glance and in Every fact and its source are quoted from the sources listed. The summary, What the AI did and What this means for you are written from those sources and checked against them automatically before publication. Records reflect what has been disclosed, not everything that has happened. Incidents are found through news feeds and the GDELT Project.
