(Editor’s note: This blog is the second of a three-part series about artificial intelligence (AI) in California workers’ compensation.)
Artificial intelligence (AI) isn’t just a law firm problem that stays behind closed doors. When a defense attorney decides to outsource their brain to a robot with the legal judgment of an overconfident first-year law student, the consequences don’t stay in counsel’s office—they land squarely on the claim file.
When defense counsel makes a reckless AI blunder, the file takes a very long, very expensive detour. Algorithms don’t carry malpractice insurance. They don’t have a California Bar license. And they certainly aren’t going to write a check to reimburse a litigation budget.
Instead, the adjuster gets the bill. They paid defense counsel to draft a brief, figure out why the judge is screaming about fake cases, research why sanctions shouldn’t be slapped on the firm, and paid them to write a groveling letter of apology to the WCAB explaining why “the computer made me do it.”
Spoiler alert: the “computer error” defense works about as well as telling a judge your dog ate your brief. The WCAB has signaled zero tolerance for unchecked AI output. Under California Labor Code § 5813, judges are handing out Notices of Intent (NOI) to issue monetary sanctions of $2,500 or more against attorneys, law firms, and claims administrators who file hallucinated pleadings. (For more on this, check out Presiding Judge Robert Rassp’s relatively recent summarization of case law starting on p. 16 of this PDF – the sanctions are alarming.)
Now, you might be thinking: “Wait a minute. Applicant’s attorneys only get 9% to 18% out of the applicant’s award, or maybe a § 5710 fee for a deposition. How does this cost us extra?”
Prepare to be horrified.
When defense counsel submits a brief containing hallucinated case law or made-up quotes, applicant’s counsel doesn’t just chuckle—they hit the jackpot. Under Labor Code § 5813 and 8 CCR § 10421, a WCJ can order sanctions and full fee-shifting for bad-faith tactics. Filing a brief with completely fictional law fits that definition perfectly.
Applicant’s counsel will immediately file a Petition for Sanctions. The defense firm—or your claims department—will then be ordered to pay opposing counsel’s hourly rate ($300 to $500+ per hour) for every single minute they spent hunting down your fake cases, drafting the petition, and attending a hearing to tell the judge how incompetent the defense was.
CONCLUSION
On top of paying opposing counsel to roast your lawyer in open court, you (or your attorney…I’ll let you have a friendly chat about that!) get to pay a $2,500 statutory fine directly to the State of California. By letting an unverified AI write a brief, the defense effectively funds both sides of a completely self-inflicted nightmare. Between opposing counsel’s hourly fees, defense time spent fixing the disaster, and court fines, a minor procedural dispute rapidly turns into a $5,000 to $12,000-plus defense liability. Relying on unvetted AI means letting a robot with no bar license write science fiction while your client pays for the publishing rights.
“Open the pod bay doors, HAL.”
If you think judges will let this slide with a stern finger-wagging, wait until you see what happened in Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing. In our final article, we’ll look at a real-life horror story where a single unverified AI filing triggered state bar investigations, public shaming, and a destroyed career.
Don R. Barthel is one of the founding partners of Bradford and Barthel, and is based in the firm’s Sacramento office. He has taken dozens of doctor depositions and analyzed thousands of medical-legal reports in order to correct innumerable errors, including misapplications of the AMA Guides, statutory misunderstandings, and other errors making the underlying medical reporting entirely speculative and unreliable. If you have any questions about workers’ compensation defense issues, please feel free to contact him at 916.569.0790 or via email at dbarthel@bradfordbarthel.com.
Viewing this website does not form an attorney/client relationship between you and Bradford & Barthel, LLP or any of its attorneys. This website is for informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. This document is not a substitute for legal advice and may not address every factual scenario. If you have a legal question, we encourage you to contact your favorite Bradford & Barthel, LLP attorney to discuss the legal issues applicable to your unique case. No website is entirely secure, so please be cautious with information provided through the contact form or email. Do not assume confidentiality exists in anything you send through this website or email, until an attorney/client relationship is formed.