San Francisco Partner Mark R. Wilson recently prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion after uncovering opposing counsel’s reliance on AI-generated legal authority in court filings.
In the underlying case, an insurance company obtained declaratory relief following a motor vehicle accident involving its named insureds and the plaintiff in this case. After the court determined the insurer did not owe coverage under the policy, Plaintiff pursued a personal injury action against the named insureds and obtained a judgment in his favor. He then demanded that the insurance company pay him the policy limits based on the ruling, but the insurance company denied it had an obligation to do so.
Plaintiff thereafter filed suit against both the insurance company and our client, who was counsel for the insurer. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged the insurance company and our client had violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act by refusing to pay the court’s judgment, contending the defendants’ acts were motivated by racial animus.
In response, Mr. Wilson filed an anti-SLAPP motion, a mechanism to request that the court strike a meritless lawsuit that targets protected speech or petitioning activity. In this motion, Mr. Wilson argued that Plaintiff’s allegations arose from our client’s protected activity, including pre-litigation settlement negotiations and the filing of the declaratory relief action. During briefing, Mr. Wilson identified multiple citations in Plaintiff’s opposition referencing nonexistent cases and quotes and, in reply, addressed opposing counsel’s apparent misuse of artificial intelligence.
The court granted our anti-SLAPP motion in its entirety, finding that our client sufficiently established Plaintiff’s allegations arose from its protected activity and that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his claims, having not produced any evidence of discriminatory animus or intent.
The court also addressed opposing counsel’s reliance on fabricated legal authority, finding that the conduct violated Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits attorneys from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, and admonished Plaintiff’s counsel for citing non-existent legal authority.
About Mark R. Wilson
Mark R. Wilson is a member of the Appellate Law (Strategy, Writs, & Appeals) team. Mr. Wilson has an extensive appellate background and has litigated in the California Supreme Court, California Courts of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Additionally, he serves on the board of the American Constitution Society’s Bay Area Lawyer Chapter and the Amicus Committee of the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California and Nevada.