Ethics in Brief: Avoiding Sanctions and Possible State Bar Discipline
By: Timothy Casey
Courts have authority to impose sanctions on lawyers. California courts find their authority to issue sanctions in Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, which “authorizes trial courts to impose sanctions to check abuses in the filing of pleadings, petitions, written notices of motions or similar papers.” (Civ. Proc. § 128.7). Sanctions can include an order of “a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses….” (Civ. Proc. § 128.7(d)(2)). The California Rules of Court permit a court to award sanctions “to the court or an aggrieved [party], or both.” (R. Court, rule 2.30(b)).
Federal courts have similar authority. Rule 11 requires lawyers to ensure the veracity of information presented to the court and grants broad authority to the court to issue sanctions. (Fed. R. Civ. Proc., rule 11). In addition, sanctions may be imposed for “unreasonably or vexatiously multiplying the proceedings in any case.” (28 U.S.C.A. § 1927). Courts may order attorneys to “satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” (28 U.S.C.A. § 1927).
When a court imposes sanctions (other than sanctions for failure to make discovery or sanctions less than $1000), the court must make a report to the State Bar. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6087.7(a)(3)). Moreover, the State Bar must investigate any matter reported pursuant to section 6087.7. (Bus. & Prof. Code §6087.7(c)).
Recent decisions and orders highlight the different ways attorneys might be sanctioned. A recent Court of Appeals decision, Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC, et al.; Lipeles, et al. (A174202) (June 11, 2026), affirmed the trial court’s imposition of sanctions in a class action where plaintiff’s attorney filed duplicative actions in Los Angeles and in San Francisco, and then opposed a motion to stay the second filing. The opposition presented a “groundless” legal argument based on “fake legal” authorities, which included inaccurate case citations, misrepresentations of controlling authority, misrepresented holdings, and no fewer than eight fabricated quotations. (Quinteros, supra, at *5).
Quinteros is not the first appellate decision regarding the duty to check legal authorities and citations. In Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 426, the court upheld sanctions imposed on lawyers by the trial court for filing pleadings that included false citations. The Noland court provided guidance on how to avoid sanctions. “Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations—whether provided by generative AI or any other source—that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified.” (Noland, supra, at 431).
In Guardant Health, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., No. 21-CV-04062-EMC, 2026 WL 1401006, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2026), a federal court imposed sanctions of $2.9 million dollars against the law firm of Quinn Emmanuel. That case did not involve the use of artificial intelligence, but rather, the actions and statements of several Quinn Emanuel attorneys related to a request to reopen discovery. (Guardant Health, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., Order Adopting Special Master Reports on Sanctions granting limited Sealing, 21-CV-04062, (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2026).
In sum, attorneys must be aware that actions have consequences. When the actions involve violations of ethical rules – especially violations related to the attorney’s duty of candor to the court – the consequences can include sanctions and possible State Bar investigation and prosecution.
