Three attorneys are facing discipline from the State Bar of California after allegations that they cited nonexistent legal decisions in submitted court documents that were written using artificial intelligence. Though attorneys are permitted to use AI, they must independently verify all information included in court filings.

Div. Seven of this district’s Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge properly denied an anti-SLAPP motion filed by a Los Angeles attorney and his spouse as to a malicious prosecution claim accusing them of pursuing a civil action against the plaintiff for battery while knowing that it was the lawyer’s wife who was the aggressor in the incident.

A mother who called into court 25 minutes after the time scheduled for the proceedings, just after oral findings were made and her parental ties to her child were severed, was not denied due process by virtue of the commissioner’s decision not to reopen the hearing, Div. Five of this district’s Court of Appeal has held.

Div. Four of the First District Court of Appeal has issued a decision in the case of Y.P. v. Wells Fargo Co., according anonymity to a San Francisco lawyer who accepted from a new “client” a $99,700 cashier’s check—supposedly representing monies owed that person by a third party—deposited it, three days later honored a request to wire $89,730 to the client, then, after the check was found to be bogus, sued the bank to recover the lost monies.