WCAB Warns Against Unchecked Use of Artificial Intelligence in Legal Pleadings

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is increasing throughout society, and its use in law is no exception. AI provides tools for lawyers to quickly and effectively deliver legal services. Many lawyers use AI for both routine and complicated legal tasks, and those who do not risk falling behind.

As an emerging technology, however, AI is not infallible. Even the most advanced AI models have limitations and might not be familiar with all of the procedural and substantive court rules. A recent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) panel decision illustrates the dangers of relying entirely on AI to draft legal pleadings, and provides a stark warning about attorney oversight in an era of increasing reliance on AI.

In Sedano v. Live Action General Engineering Inc., 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 193, the WCAB issued a notice of intent (NOI) to impose sanctions of as much as $2,500 against a defense firm and the signing attorney for filing a profoundly defective petition for reconsideration, which it suspected was drafted by AI. The decision highlights attorneys' ultimate responsibility for the content of their filings, and signals the WCAB's intolerance for sloppy, frivolous or misleading pleadings, regardless of whether they were drafted by a human or a computer chip.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The underlying case involved an applicant who sustained an industrial injury and, after his state disability benefits were exhausted, elected to take his union retirement. The applicant alleged that he was forced into retirement because the defendant failed to commence timely temporary disability (TD) payments. The defendant later made an offer of modified work, which the applicant declined, as he was retired. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that the defendant was estopped from arguing that the work offer terminated its TD liability, and also that the offer was medically invalid.

The defendant filed a petition for reconsideration, which the WCAB found to be riddled with errors. Specifically, the board found that the petition:

• failed to state all of the material evidence relative to the points at issue, and failed to cite the evidentiary record as required by CCR § 10945(b);
• improperly attached 81 pages of documents that were already in the record in violation of CCR § 10945(c)(1);
• raised issues not decided at trial, primarily asserting that the WCJ failed to apportion permanent disability (PD) when the trial was solely about TD benefits;
• failed to cite proper legal authority, citing cases that were irrelevant, nonexistent or not citable.

The WCAB and the presiding WCJ both noted that the nature, formatting and syntax of the errors suggested that the petition might have been drafted using AI and wasn't reviewed by a licensed attorney. The WCAB also noted that the conduct was sanctionable regardless of how it was drafted.

The WCAB recognized that the use of AI was increasingly popular, and it welcomed the defendant to address whether the petition was drafted by AI. It also requested that the defendant explain why the petition had so many errors, and why they weren't corrected once the defendant received the presiding WCJ's report.

ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION

Instead of simply denying the deficient petition, the WCAB granted it for the sole purpose of issuing an NOI to impose sanctions. The Sedano case is a clear lesson for all practitioners, especially with the rise of AI in legal drafting. Ultimately, the attorney who signs a pleading is responsible for its content. Legal pleadings must be verified under penalty of perjury, which underscores the signatory's personal and professional accountability for the document's accuracy and integrity.

AI is a tool to assist with legal work — it is not a replacement for independent thought or analysis. Practitioners must independently verify every fact, check every case citation for relevance and validity and ensure that the legal arguments are coherent and applicable to the actual issues in the case. Practitioners also must ensure that the legal pleadings comply with the WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The consequences for ignoring this lesson are severe. Not only can failure to comply lead to petitions being denied or dismissed, but can expose the parties and their attorneys to sanctions. In Sedano, the WCAB issued a notice of intention, pursuant to LC 5813, to impose sanctions up to $2,500 against the employer, insurer, the claim administrator, law firm and the specific attorney, jointly and severally.

For the attorneys, the sanctions can result in both professional discipline and reputational harm. BPC § 6086.7 requires a court to notify the state Bar if sanctions of $1,000 or more are ordered against an attorney, and the WCAB complies with that rule.

The fact that the attorney and the law firm were listed on the NOI is significant. The state Bar website explains, "Even if you were not named individually, but the firm at which you are a partner or shareholder was named, you must report the action or proceeding. The only  exception to this is if you know that the firm has already reported the action; in this instance, you are relieved of the obligation." So, not only must individual attorneys make certain that the documents they file comply with fundamental rules of practice, law firms should do so as well.

For further discussion regarding sanctions for filing frivolous petitions, see "Sullivan on Comp" Section 13.4 Sanction Under LC 5813. For further discussion regarding the requirements for a petition for reconsideration, see "Sullivan on Comp" Section 16.62 Petition for Reconsideration — Form and Content.