Scientology seeks to shift the blame elsewhere

The California Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether a trial court can overlook an attorney’s admitted misuse of artificial intelligence that produced inaccurate citations in a brief filed by the Church of Scientology International and its affiliates.

Petition raises procedural and constitutional questions

The petition stems from the case Bixler v. Church of Scientology International, where five women allege the organization launched a “relentless campaign of harassment, surveillance, threats, and defamation” after they accused a prominent member of rape. The trial court granted a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ claims, but the appellate court reversed that decision, allowing the case to continue.

During the appeal, the plaintiffs’ counsel disclosed reliance on artificial‑intelligence software to draft portions of their brief. The program generated citations that were later found to be incorrect, mischaracterized, or entirely fabricated. The appellate court noted the error but did not address whether penalties were appropriate.

In a separate matter, the well‑known firm Boies Schiller Flexner admitted AI‑generated mistakes in a different case. The California Court of Appeal signaled that sanctions might be considered, yet ultimately did not impose any. The firm’s response echoed standard apologies, leaving the issue unresolved.

Now the Church of Scientology has petitioned the state’s highest court, asking two distinct questions. The first asks whether a court faced with undisputed AI abuse can simply ignore it without explaining its reasoning. The petitioner argues that no other California court has declined to sanction such conduct, implying that the appellate court should have done the same.

The second question moves beyond procedural concerns to a First Amendment issue. Plaintiffs claim the organization employs a doctrine known as “Fair Game,” which allegedly authorizes harassment of former members. Although the Church denies the existence of such a policy, a prior declaration from a representative acknowledged that “Fair Game” was once an authorized doctrine. The petition asks whether a court may rely on a purported religious teaching that the organization’s current leadership disavows.

Legal community watches AI‑related discipline

Legal scholars have warned that AI tools, while helpful for research, can produce unreliable output when used without human oversight. The present case illustrates how a single inaccurate citation can ripple through a high‑profile lawsuit, potentially affecting the credibility of the parties involved.

Related: Supreme Court Sends Contempt Notices to 15 States

One practical takeaway for attorneys is the growing expectation that they will verify any AI‑generated content before filing. Courts may soon formalize penalties for failures to do so, though the exact standards remain unsettled. The petition’s focus on whether a court must explain its decision on sanctions reflects this uncertainty.

From a broader perspective, the rise of AI in legal practice mirrors other professional fields where technology promises efficiency but also introduces new risks. As courts grapple with these challenges, they will need to balance the benefits of innovation against the duty to maintain accurate and reliable advocacy.

The outcome of this petition could set a precedent that either reinforces or relaxes that balance.

Meanwhile, the Church’s own arguments touch on the delicate line between religious freedom and accountability.

If a court were to accept the organization’s claim that its leaders’ statements alone dictate doctrinal truth, it might set a precedent limiting judicial inquiry into alleged misconduct rooted in religious teaching. That possibility adds another layer of complexity to the case.

The petition was denied without comment, leaving both procedural and constitutional questions open. Plaintiffs continue to pursue their claims, and the legal community remains attentive to how courts will address AI‑related errors moving forward.