from the blame-it-on-sassafras-patterdale dept

We’ve been covering the growing parade of lawyers submitting AI-hallucinated case citations to courts for a while now. It keeps happening, and courts keep having to deal with it. But the pattern is usually the same: a careless attorney uses ChatGPT to draft a brief, the fake citations get spotted by the opposing side or the judge, and sanctions follow. Embarrassing, but contained.

What happened in a California state appellate case decided this month is something far more insane (found via Bluesky). A hallucinated citation traveled through an entire legal proceeding — from a Reddit blog post to a client’s declaration to an attorney’s letter to the opposing attorney’s draft of the court order to the judge’s signature to appellate filings — and at no point along the way did anyone bother to check whether the case actually existed.

Oh, and the whole thing was about custody of a dog named Kyra.

The published opinion from California’s Fourth Appellate District lays out the chain of absurd failures. The court published the opinion specifically, it says, to emphasize a point that really shouldn’t need emphasizing:

We publish this opinion to emphasize that courts and attorneys alike have a responsibility to protect the legal system against distortion by fabricated law, particularly in this new era of hallucinated citations generated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools. In a system of precedents that is designed to achieve consistency, predictability, and adherence to the rule of law, the judiciary cannot function properly unless judges and lawyers confirm the authenticity of cited authorities and review them to evaluate their holdings and reasoning. When the participants fail to perform this basic function, it compromises these institutional values and diminishes faith in the judicial process.

Here’s how the case got there: Joan Pablo Torres Campos (Torres) and Leslie Ann Munoz dissolved their domestic partnership in 2022. Two years later, Torres wanted shared custody and visitation of Kyra (the dog). Munoz, represented pro bono by her cousin — attorney Roxanne Chung Bonar — opposed. In her opposition, Bonar cited two cases: Marriage of Twigg and Marriage of Teegarden.

Neither case exists. Or rather, the actual citations Bonar gave correspond to completely unrelated cases — one is a criminal case, and the other is a spousal support case from a different year with a different citation. But as cited by Bonar, with the holdings she described, these cases were pure fiction.

And where did the fake citations come from? Apparently a Reddit blog post. By someone named… Sassafras Patterdale. I am not joking:

Bonar did not submit any declaration of her own, but she submitted one from her client Munoz. Munoz explained that the Twigg case was discussed in a Reddit article a paralegal friend had sent her, and Munoz did not realize the case was fictitious. The Reddit article was attached as an exhibit to Munoz’s declaration. It was authored by “Sassafras Patterdale,” who was identified as “a blogger, podcaster, and animal rescuer, who writes about divorce, custody, and the messy, beautiful lives we weave.” The article was about pet custody battles. It cited “Marriage of Twigg (1984) 34 Cal.3d 926” as a “watershed” California Supreme Court case holding “that custody determinations must consider the emotional well, being [sic] and stability of the parties.”

The Reddit article did not include the parallel reporter citations and date of decision for Twigg that were included in Bonar’s opposition to the second motion to reinstate the appeal. Neither Bonar’s response to our order nor Munoz’s declaration explained where this additional fictitious information came from.

Advertisement

And then Torres’s own lawyer — a reminder: he’s the one who filed the lawsuit to get visitation with the dog — drafted the proposed court order and included the same fake citations the opposing party had used, without verifying them either.

And the court signed it. Because of course it did.

Torres’s counsel submitted a proposed Findings and Order After Hearing, which the court approved as conforming to its oral ruling. The order cited the fictional Twigg and Teegarden cases as follows:

“The Court notes the follow[ing] cases: Marriage of Twigg (1984) 34 Cal.3d 926 and Marriage of Teegarden (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1572 [(Teegarden)], in which the Court has to take the well-being and stability of the parties involved when deciding pet visitation and custody….”

So to recap: the fake citation originated on Reddit, traveled into the defendant client’s declaration, was used by the defendant client’s attorney, was then included by the opposing attorney in the draft order, and was signed by the judge. Nobody — not either attorney, not the judge — looked up the cases.

But that’s just the warm-up.

Torres appealed. His appeal was dismissed for failure to file an opening brief. He moved to reinstate it. In her opposition to that motion, Bonar — still representing Munoz — cited the fake cases again, this time telling the appellate court: “This isn’t new, courts decide these based on what’s best for everyone involved (Marriage of Twigg (1984) 34 Cal.3d 926; In re Marriage of Teegarden (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1572).”

Torres filed a second motion to reinstate, and this time finally pointed out that these were “invented case law.”

Now, a reasonable response to being told your citations are fabricated might be to quietly check, discover the problem, and apologize to the court — ideally with some groveling, in hopes of limited sanctions.

Bonar, however, chose a different path. She doubled down. Hard.

Bonar filed another opposition on behalf of Munoz. The opposition stated: “Appellant’s Claim of Fabricated Case Law is Baseless.” It asserted: “This is a grave accusation, but it is entirely unfounded and reflects Appellant’s own failure to conduct basic legal research. Both cases are valid, published precedents, and Appellant’s inability to locate them underscores the incompetence that led to his appeal’s dismissal.”

And then she went further, providing additional citation details for the fake Twigg case — parallel reporter citations, a specific date of decision — none of which appeared in the original Reddit article and all of which were also completely fabricated:

“Marriage of Twigg (1984) 34 Cal.3d 926: This is a legitimate California Supreme Court case, reported at 34 Cal.3d 926, 195 Cal.Rptr. 718, 670 P.2d 340, decided on July 5, 1984. The ruling addresses custody determinations in dissolution proceedings, emphasizing the importance of the emotional well-being and stability of the parties involved.”

None of those parallel citations correspond to a Twigg case. No California case by that name was decided on July 5, 1984. The additional details were just as fake as the original citation — almost certainly generated by an AI tool when Bonar went looking for backup. During oral arguments (i.e., well after the judge had already issued an order to show cause about the fictional citations) she finally admitted maybe she had used AI:

At oral argument, Bonar claimed she could not remember where this additional fictitious citation information came from. She acknowledged she did not have a paid subscription to a legal research service at the time, and she was using other online resources including AI for this purpose. She also conceded she may have obtained fictitious information about Twigg and Teegarden using AI tools.

But the cherry on top — the part where you have to put the ruling down and go for a walk just to remind yourself that some other part of the world is good — is that in this same filing where she doubled down on fabricated case law with additional fabricated details, Bonar accused opposing counsel of being the incompetent one and mocks them for being unable to search and find the non-existent cases.

Appellant’s assertion that no such case or parties exist is incorrect; a simple search for ‘Teegarden marriage California’ reveals the 1986 decision involving Anne and Byron Teegarden. This misrepresentation not only fails to prove misconduct but exposes Appellant’s counsel’s deficient preparation, which mirrors the neglect that caused the default.

Again: she called the lawyer who (eventually) correctly identified her fake citations incompetent for failing to find cases that don’t exist.

The court was not amused. It hit Bonar with $5,000 in sanctions — significantly more than the $1,500 that the same court imposed in a recent similar case — specifically because she “persisted in and aggravated the misconduct by providing additional fictitious citation information” and “still has not been completely forthcoming with this court.” The opinion is also being forwarded to the State Bar of California.

As for Torres, the appellant who did finally correctly identify the fake citations? He lost anyway. The court found that because his own lawyer drafted and submitted the order containing the fake citations without objecting or verifying them, he forfeited his right to challenge those citations on appeal. In other words: his lawyer helped propagate the hallucinated citations by including them in the draft order, and he can’t now complain about the very thing his lawyer failed to catch.

Torres forfeited his claim of error both by his affirmative conduct and his inaction. Although Munoz and Bonar were responsible for improperly citing these fictitious authorities in the first place, Torres’s own counsel affirmatively drafted and submitted the proposed order with these citations that was ultimately signed by the family court. And even though his own counsel drafted the order, Torres failed to object to the court’s reliance on these citations or call the court’s attention to the issue.

There’s a lesson here that goes well beyond “lawyers should verify their citations” — though they really, desperately should. This case shows how hallucinated AI output achieves a kind of credibility laundering as it passes through the system. The fake citation looked more legitimate in the client’s declaration because it had been in a blog post. More legitimate in the court order because it had been in the declaration. More legitimate in the appellate filing because it had been in the court order. At each step, someone assumed that someone earlier in the chain had already done the checking. Nobody had.

In a legal system built entirely on the idea that citations to precedent mean something — that every case cited in an order actually happened and actually stands for the proposition claimed — this kind of cascading failure is really, really bad. And as AI tools get better at generating plausible-sounding legal citations — complete with reporter volumes, page numbers, and dates — the obligation on every participant in the system to actually verify what they’re citing becomes that much more important.

The court itself apparently recognized that its “please just check your citations” message might need some institutional reinforcement. Its footnote at the end of the sanctions section quietly recommends that the Judicial Council consider adopting formal guidelines or rules requiring verification of citations — particularly in party-drafted orders submitted for a judge’s signature. Which is, in hindsight, an obvious hole in the system. But it took Sassafras Patterdale, a Reddit post, and a dog named Kyra to expose it.

Filed Under: ai, california, citations, dog custody, hallucinations, joan pablo torres, lawyers, leslie munoz, sassafras patterdale

Looming over the internet lasers and firestarting phones companies were touting at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona this month, was a more nebulous but much larger announcement: a pan-European cloud called EURO-3C.

EURO-3C’s backers – Spanish telecoms giant Telefónica, dozens of other European companies, and the European Commission (EC) – aim to fill a gap. U.S.-based cloud giants dominate in the EU, and European policymakers want their growing portfolio of digital government services on a “sovereign cloud” under full EU control.

But the EU lacks a real equivalent to the likes of AWS or Microsoft Azure. Indeed, any effort to build one will inevitably run up against the same U.S. cloud giants.

Just four U.S.-based hyperscalers – AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, and IBM Cloud – together account for some 70 percent of EU cloud services. This is despite the fact that the 2018 U.S. CLOUD Act allows U.S. federal law enforcement – at least in theory – to compel U.S.-based firms to hand over data that’s stored abroad.

But those hypothetical risks to digital services have become more real as transatlantic relations have soured under the second Trump administration. The U.S. has openly threatened to invade an EU member state and sanctioned a European Commissioner for passing legislation the White House dislikes.

After the White House sanctioned the Netherlands-based International Criminal Court in February 2025, Court staffers claimed Microsoft locked the Court’s chief prosecutor out of his email (Microsoft has denied this). Around the same time, the U.S. reportedly threatened to sever EU ally Ukraine’s access to crucial Starlink satellite internet as leverage during trade negotiations.

“The geopolitical risk isn’t just the most extreme form of a doomsday ‘kill switch’ where Washington turns off Europe’s internet,” Stéfane Fermigier of EuroStack, an industry group that supports European digital independence. “It is the selective degradation of services and a total lack of retaliatory leverage.”

What, then, is the EU to do? France offers an example. Even before 2025, France implemented harsh restrictions on non-EU cloud providers in public services – providers must locate data in the EU, rely on EU-based staff, and may not have majority-non-EU shareholders. Now, EU policymakers are following France’s lead.

In October 2025, the EC issued a two-part framework for judging cloud providers bidding for public sector contracts. In the first part, the framework lays out a sort of sovereignty ladder. The more that a provider is subject to EU law, the higher its sovereignty level on this ladder. Any prospective bidder must first meet a certain level, depending on the tender.

Qualifying bidders then move to the second part, where their “sovereignty” is scored in more detail. Using too much proprietary software; over-relying on supply chains from outside the EU; having non-EU support staff; liability to non-EU laws like the CLOUD Act: all hurt a bidder’s score.

The framework was created for one tender, but observers say it sets a major precedent. Cloud providers bidding for state contracts across Europe may need to follow it, and it may influence legislation on both national and EU-wide levels.

Who, then, will receive high marks? At the moment, the answer is not simple. The EU cloud scene is quite fragmented. Numerous modest EU providers offer “sovereign cloud” services – such as Scaleway, OVHcloud, and Deutsche Telekom’s T-Systems – but none are on the scale of AWS or Google Cloud.

Inertia is on the side of the U.S. cloud giants, who can invest in their infrastructure and services on a far grander scale than their European counterparts. Some U.S. providers now offer cloud services they say comply with the Commission’s “cloud sovereignty” demands.

Some European observers, like EuroStack, say such promises are hollow so long as a provider’s parent company is subject to the likes of the CLOUD Act, and loopholes in the Commission’s process remain open. An AWS spokesperson told Spectrum it had not disclosed any non-US enterprise or government data to the U.S. government under the CLOUD Act; a Google spokesperson said that its most sensitive EU offerings “are subject to local laws, not US law”.

Even if a project like EURO-3C can offer a large-scale alternative, the US cloud giants have another sort of inertia. Many developers – and many public purchasers of their services – will need convincing to leave behind a familiar environment.

“If you look at AWS, you look at Google, they’ve created some super technology. It’s very convenient, it’s easy to use,” says Arnold Juffer, CEO of the Netherlands-based cloud provider Nebul. “Once you’re in that platform, in that ecosystem, it’s very hard to get out.”

Martyna Chmura, an analyst at the Bloomsbury Intelligence and Security Institute, a London-based think tank, sees some EU developers taking a mixed approach. “Many organizations are already moving toward multi-cloud setups, using European or sovereign providers for sensitive workloads while still relying on hyperscalers for certain services,” she says.

In that case, the EU’s top-down demands may encourage developers to use EU providers for sensitive applications – like government services, transport, autonomous vehicles, and some industrial automation – even if it’s inconvenient in the short term, or if it causes even more fragmentation of the EU cloud scene. “Running systems across different platforms can increase integration costs and make security and data governance more complicated. In some cases, organisations could lose some of the efficiency and cost advantages that come from using large hyperscale platforms,” Chmura says.

“Overall, the EU appears willing to accept some of these trade-offs,” Chmura says.