Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
While AI can assist lawyers, it cannot replace them. The signing attorney is responsible for every filed citation, quotation, and legal proposition. The lawyer also must immediately report AI hallucinations found in filings. A cover-up may be punished more harshly than the botched brief.
Into the What-Were-They-Thinking Department entered two Orange County lawyers, filing briefs the federal appeals court later found to contain “multiple nonexistent cases, misattributed quotations, and gross misrepresentations of real cases.” Claiming the errors were innocent typos, the attorneys denied the possibility that generative artificial intelligence might have produced the errors. The Court, finding otherwise, sanctioned the lawyers, including a six-month suspension from the practice of law. Anu v. Blanche (June 3, 2006).
Along the way, one of the lawyers eventually conceded it was “possible” AI had been used by the law student who drafted the briefs. While the attorney “reviewed” them before filing, “no licensed attorney read the cases cited...”
While not condemning generative AI as inherently unethical, the Court noted the tool prone to “hallucinations”—fabricated authorities and inaccurate legal statements. Even legal-specific tools from major research providers had reported hallucination rates of 17% and 33% on a representative set of legal queries in 2024.
A competent lawyer must do more than ask AI, confirm the cited case exists, and “call it a day.” The lawyer must “read and reason,” responsible for analysis of the referenced authorities.
However once called out, the lawyers went all-in, offering fictional justifications for their breaches of diligence and candor. The three-judge panel further found these as knowing or “recklessly false statements” to the Court.
The Court thus sanctioned each attorney $2,500, suspended them from practice before the Ninth Circuit for six months, and directed them to provide the disciplinary order to their clients, opposing counsel, presiding judges in all pending cases and every attorney in their firm.
For two years, the lawyers and all attorneys at their firm must include in filings a sworn statement disclosing whether generative AI was used, identifying the tool, and certifying that the signing attorney personally reviewed the filing and verified that all citations and quotations refer to existing authority.
Boom.
Take-Aways:
While AI can assist lawyers, it cannot replace them. The signing attorney is responsible for every filed citation, quotation, and legal proposition. The lawyer also must immediately report AI hallucinations found in filings. A cover-up may be punished more harshly than the botched brief.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Techno Train Wreck - Lawyers v. Artificial Intelligence (May 8, 2026)
Tim Bowles
June 12, 2026
Effective July 1, 2026, several California cities and counties will increase their local minimum wage rates. To keep track of interim updates, see the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education.
Effective July 1, 2026, several California cities and counties will increase their local minimum wage rates.
To keep track of interim updates, see the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education.
For employers with remote employees in multiple jurisdictions or employees who travel across different cities and counties, applicable minimum wage rates may vary based on each employee’s work location(s). To simplify compliance, some employers choose to pay the highest applicable minimum wage across all locations.
Some industries, such as fast food, hotels, and healthcare, have separate minimum wage requirements. Employers in those and other specialized industries should check on whether a special minimum wage applies to their industry.
Covered employers must conspicuously post the applicable wage notice or notices, which are available through the links above.
See also:
Helena Kobrin
Daniska Coronado
June 11, 2026
A company establishes its brand by a correctly-used and protected trademark or service mark. Trademarks protect tangible goods and service marks protect services.
A company establishes its brand by a correctly-used and protected trademark or service mark. Trademarks protect tangible goods and service marks protect services. Companies must take appropriate steps to safeguard such important and valuable assets.
An important first step is to choose a strong mark. Look for one that no one else is using for the same or similar products or services. It also should not copy a particular use by a strong brand, such as using “’R Us” with Toys or some other word.
It also must not be too generic or descriptive of products or services. For example, if a business sells candy, it cannot register “Candy Store” for its trademark, but if it sells clothing, it may be able to do so.
Once a mark has been selected, register it with the US Patent and Trademark Office to protect from unauthorized use. Maintaining registration and complying with use requirements guard against pilfering of a mark’s acquired goodwill.
A trademark attorney can obtain appropriate searches for users of similar marks and can advise whether a mark is a good candidate for USPTO registration. It is possible to purchase a trademark search directly. However, without review by a qualified attorney, the search may have little value and the trademark can be challenged after a company has invested in using it.
A registered trademark owner must file with the USPTO every few years to maintain protections. Calendars are highly recommended for such legal dates.
Our firm is available to help select, vet, register and maintain trademarks and service marks.
Take-Aways:
Hire a qualified trademark attorney to help choose, register and maintain strong trademarks with the proper, timely USPTO filings.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
The Annals of Trademark Number 2: Selecting a Mark Part 1 (October 24, 2014)
The Annals of Trademark Number 1: What is a Trademark? (October 16, 2014)
Copyright Protection: How Long are Copyrights Protected? Not So “Elementary My Dear Watson!”
Helena Kobrin
June 5, 2026
California employers had to give employees written notice by February 1, 2026, and offer them the opportunity to name an emergency contact for arrest or detention notification by March 30, 2026.
California employers had to give employees written notice by February 1, 2026, and offer them the opportunity to name an emergency contact for arrest or detention notification by March 30, 2026. Employers who have missed these deadlines should act immediately.
As previously reported in Heads-Up: Know Your Rights Law — Emergency Contacts Designations (March 27, 2026) and What's New in 2026: Sign of the Times (January 9, 2026), California's Workplace Know Your Rights Act (Labor Code sections 1550–1559) requires employers to:
Multilingual Notices Now Available
The Labor Commissioner's template notice is available on the DLSE Workplace Postings page in 11 languages: English, Spanish, Chinese (simplified), Chinese (traditional), Vietnamese, Korean, Tagalog, Hindi, Punjabi, Arabic, and Urdu. Employers should use the language they normally use to communicate with each employee.
Penalties Apply
The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors enforce these rules. Civil penalties are up to $500 per employee per violation. Emergency-contact violations may reach $500 per employee per day, capped at $10,000 per employee.
Take-Aways:
Employers who have not provided the annual notice in the appropriate language or offered employees the chance to designate an emergency contact should do so now and update onboarding processes accordingly.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth, or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Cindy Bamforth
June 4, 2026
Employers who have not provided the annual notice in the appropriate language or offered employees the chance to designate an emergency contact should do so now and update onboarding processes accordingly.
California employers had to give employees written notice by February 1, 2026, and offer them the opportunity to name an emergency contact for arrest or detention notification by March 30, 2026. Employers who have missed these deadlines should act immediately.
As previously reported in Heads-Up: Know Your Rights Law — Emergency Contacts Designations (March 27, 2026) and What's New in 2026: Sign of the Times (January 9, 2026), California's Workplace Know Your Rights Act (Labor Code sections 1550–1559) requires employers to:
Multilingual Notices Now Available
The Labor Commissioner's template notice is available on the DLSE Workplace Postings page in 11 languages: English, Spanish, Chinese (simplified), Chinese (traditional), Vietnamese, Korean, Tagalog, Hindi, Punjabi, Arabic, and Urdu. Employers should use the language they normally use to communicate with each employee.
Penalties Apply
The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors enforce these rules. Civil penalties are up to $500 per employee per violation. Emergency-contact violations may reach $500 per employee per day, capped at $10,000 per employee.
Take-Aways:
Employers who have not provided the annual notice in the appropriate language or offered employees the chance to designate an emergency contact should do so now and update onboarding processes accordingly.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth, or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Cindy Bamforth
June 4, 2026
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation requires private employers with more than 100 workers, and federal contractors and first-tier subcontractors with 50 or more employees or with contracts worth more than $50,000, file an...
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation requires private employers with more than 100 workers, and federal contractors and first-tier subcontractors with 50 or more employees or with contracts worth more than $50,000, file an annual EEO-1 report addressing demographic data by number of employees, race/ethnicity, sex, and job category.
The required filing date changes annually. This year, the EEOC has not yet announced the filing window. However, a “rescission” proposal is pending with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget that reportedly will eliminate the requirement altogether.
If the federal EEO-1 reports go by the boards, California’s pay data reporting law remains, mandating private employers with 100 or more employees (with at least one employee in California) to annually submit detailed, establishment-specific information to the Civil Rights Department. This year’s deadline was May 13, 2026. Late filings carry a mandatory $100 penalty for the first offense, $200 subsequently.
Take-Aways:
Employers of all sizes should calendar and comply with applicable federal, state and local government reporting deadlines.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Helena Kobrin
May 29, 2026
Picture the HR director in receipt of this email: Dear Ms. Smith: After my more than five years of excellent work, you abruptly and cruelly fired me yesterday.
Picture the HR director in receipt of this email:
Dear Ms. Smith:
After my more than five years of excellent work, you abruptly and cruelly fired me yesterday. You said I was discharged over some reports of my sexually harassing a younger female co-worker. No way. We were just talking. She liked me.
The timing tells the real story. The day before, I told you I had a headache and needed to leave early. Clearly, the proffered harassment rationale is a pretext for disability-based discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.
California law gives real force to these protections. In Brown v. State, 41 Cal.4th 620 (2007), the California Supreme Court recognized the law protects qualified employees with disabilities. Cousins v. Bethlehem Steel, 23 Cal.4th 612 (2000) confirms that an employer’s asserted legitimate reason may be challenged as pretext. Franks v. Department of Commerce, 37 Cal.4th 210 (2005) underscores that such issues require serious, evidence-based analysis—not a convenient after-the-fact explanation for an unlawful discharge.
To resolve this without litigation, I demand payment of $100,000 by next Thursday at 5:00 p.m. Otherwise, I will file suit on Friday and go to trial seeking a minimum of $5,000,000.
Sincerely,
Joe Jones***
Those three case decisions are fake. Mr. Jones’s analysis is seemingly plausible only because he plugged in a stilted, false narrative into his chatbox. Yet, this is small comfort to company management having to hire expensive defense counsel to fight an “AI-armed” do-it-yourself litigant, ready to exact revenge by filing push-button motions and other papers until he can extricate an extortionate sum on settlement.
While the scenario is fictitious, the spread of “pro se” (self-represented) plaintiffs suing their former employers aided by spurious AI memos and maneuvers is very real. See, AI Hallucination Cases Database – Damien Charlotin (currently counting 1,459 identified cases worldwide with generative AI produced hallucinated content).
From Kristin White, Fisher Phillips lawyer:
“There’s not really the option of a nuisance settlement, because for these individuals it’s hundreds of thousands of dollars to make them go away … So you have to litigate, and you have to be aggressive.”
From “The ChatGPT Plaintiff: How AI Is Transforming Employment Litigation, Driving Up Defense Costs, and What In-House Counsel Can Do About It | Fisher Phillips LLP” (Feb. 26, 2026)
Take-Aways:
This phenomenon is only likely to accelerate, demanding that management ensure workplace policies and protocols are up-to-date compliant, with worker complaints addressed professionally and resolutions thoroughly documented. In the event of an AI-fueled groundless or inflated legal action, an employer will thus have maximum possible materials in defense.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Tim Bowles
May 22, 2026
California’s periodic heat waves began early this year, prompting Cal/OSHA press releases starting in March. See Releases 2026-24 (“Very Hot Wednesday – Saturday”) and 2026-25 (“Dangerous Heat Wave This Week”).
California’s periodic heat waves began early this year, prompting Cal/OSHA press releases starting in March. See Releases 2026-24 (“Very Hot Wednesday – Saturday”) and 2026-25 (“Dangerous Heat Wave This Week”). There have been more since, likely to accelerate with Memorial Day approaching.
Heat illnesses range from mild to deadly, with mild to severe heat rash and heat cramps the less extreme reactions. The two most serious are: heat stroke (e.g., red, hot dry skin, high body temperature, muscle twitching, confusion, fainting, convulsions, unconsciousness); and heat exhaustion (e.g., dizziness, headache, sweaty skin, fast heartbeat, nausea, vomiting, weakness, and/or cramps).
Employers with outdoor workers must have an effective written heat illness prevention plan, following Cal/OSHA’s six protective measures:
Certain industries have additional high-heat requirements: agriculture, construction, landscaping, oil and gas extraction, and transportation of agricultural products, construction materials or other heavy materials.
Cal/OSHA’s Consultation Services Branch has a help line at 800-963-9424 for workplace health and safety questions.
Take-Aways:
Employers must take heat illness prevention obligations seriously, ensuring they provide such protections to all working in high heat conditions, outdoors and indoors.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Helena Kobrin
May 14, 2026
Honesty and integrity being mainstays of the legal profession – and most, but not necessarily all, others – AI has empowered some not-so-kosher members of the bar to new lows of disrepute. For example: In Mata v.
Honesty and integrity being mainstays of the legal profession – and most, but not necessarily all, others – AI has empowered some not-so-kosher members of the bar to new lows of disrepute. For example:
In Mata v. Avianca, a 2023 case, plaintiff’s counsel filed papers citing cases with plausible names, reporter citations, judges, procedural histories, and quotations. When the opposition could not locate the cases, the lawyers went all in, submitting supposed copies and excerpts of the “opinions”—also generated by ChatGPT. The judge imposed sanctions on the individual lawyers and their firm, including a $5,000 penalty and notice to the judges whose names had been falsely attached to fabricated opinions.
In Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2025), another lawyer turned late-night to an AI tool to write a reply that contained five fake cases. She later admitted she had not read or cite-checked the authorities and had only skimmed the AI-generated work. “A client expects that her attorney will vigorously pursue her case and make persuasive arguments on her behalf to the court. And she expects that the lawyer will perform the work in an efficient manner. Likewise, courts expect submissions from attorneys to be accurate. They similarly anticipate counsel will identify the appropriate authority supporting a legal position presented to the court. None of that happened here.” Result: $1,000 monetary sanctions.
In ByoPlanet International, LLC v. Johansson (2025) an attorney repeatedly used ChatGPT-generated material across multiple related federal and state cases. The filings included hallucinated cases and fake quotations from real ones.
The judge observed: “During a bygone era when dinosaurs roamed the earth and the undersigned was in law school (1998), to research cases a student often had to hold a volume of a legal reporter in one's hands. To ensure that all cases cited were good law, students and attorneys employed services like Shepard's Citations. But even in that dark, pre-modern age, stars rose in the distance; online legal sources, such as Westlaw and LexisNexis, came forth to aid lawyers in performing legal research…
“Now, another star rises—AI—with the potential to revolutionize the legal field (and much else) once again. From Altman to Zuckerberg, we are told that AI has the potential to perform hours of legal research on nearly any topic in seconds. Large language models like ChatGPT offer the promise to employ AI to perform legal research and even draft legal filings, such as briefs and complaints.
“However, AI is not yet a match for an actual litigator. Employing the euphemism-du-jour, AI regularly ‘hallucinates’ entire cases and ‘hallucinates’ quotations from real cases.”
The judge thus dismissed several of that lawyer’s cases, ordered him to pay the opposing party’s attorney fees and referred the offender to the state bar for discipline.
Take-Aways:
While these instances involve lawyers, the cautions of course also apply to business owners, managers, human resources directors and responsible professionals across the boards. On employment issues, management should not rely on AI-generated directives. There is no substitute for experienced competent legal counsel.
See also:
Tim Bowles
May 8, 2026