Published opinion, 1 December 2025 · source · PDF · 10 pages
Fahey, Judge) O R D E R Farivar Law Firm and Fahim Farivar for Plaintiff and Appellant. Murphy Rosen, David Rosen; Novian & Novian, Farid Novian and Sean Raymond Bozarth for Defendant and Respondent. _______________________________ THE COURT: It is undisputed that appellant’s attorney, Fahim Farivar, filed a brief containing numerous fabricated quotations—that is, language falsely attributed to published decisions. By filing a brief that misrepresents legal authority, Farivar unreasonably violated longstanding rules of this court.
The Parties’ Arguments and Submissions Respondent Ebby Shakib contends that attorney Farivar used AI in drafting appellant’s opening brief, resulting in the brief “containing what are commonly referred to as [AI] ‘hallucinations’ ”—here, “ made[-]up quotes from reported decisions.” Further, as respondent notes, appellant’s opening brief quotes from “a transcript of a hearing in a different matter altogether” (italics omitted), strategically replacing with ellipses the portions of the quotation that would betray it is from a hearing in another case.
The complete quote reads as follows (the portions omitted in the appellant’s opening brief are bolded): “The Court: Well, at best that would cure that one 3 court to strike the brief and dismiss the consolidated appeal as a sanction. In opposing the motion, appellant does not dispute that these fabricated quotes appear in his opening brief. Instead, he refers to them as “clerical citation errors” and denies that they are the result of attorney Farivar using AI tools.
4 As to the citation to a transcript from another matter, appellant explains that this, too, was an innocent mistake resulting from “portions of the transcript[ ] [in the other matter being] inadvertently included in the certified reporter’s transcript provided to this court.” (Capitalization omitted.) To support his characterization of the fabricated quotes, appellant offers the declaration of attorney Farivar, excerpts from Farivar’s Westlaw history referencing the cases cited, and chat logs of communications between Farivar and his staff.
According to appellant, this table establishes that the 10 fabricated citations it identifies reflect only “minor difference(s) in wording, not substance [compared to the actual language in the authority cited], and the underlying authorities fully support the propositions advanced.” The table includes three distinct types of fabrications, and we disagree that appellant’s characterization applies to any of them.
(2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 255, 269-270: “ ‘A partial disposition does not entitle the defendant to fees if the plaintiff subsequently dismisses the case. The dismissal eliminates the basis for prevailing party status.’ ” This Gogri decision—both generally and in the specific language from it that the “citation clarification and verification table” identifies as the basis for the fabricated quote— does not discuss or even mention fees or prevailing party status. (Gogri, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at pp.
(Gogri, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at pp. 269–270.) By any measure, all 6 three types of fabricated quotations are more than mere “clerical citation errors.” Respondent filed a reply in response to appellant’s opposition to the sanctions motion. The reply notes that appellant’s opposition itself contains inaccurate representations of case holdings, something this court has confirmed.
Land of the Free, L.P. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 426, 445 (Noland) [concluding that “relying on fabricated legal authority is sanctionable” and rendered appeal frivolous].) The Rules of Professional Conduct impose a similar responsibility. (See Rules Prof.