The Brief

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Lawyers for a Los Angeles firm representing State Farm in a lawsuit involving the rebuilding of a home after a fire have apologized for artificial intelligence hallucinations in their filings.

The homeowner’s lawyers discovered in motions filed by State Farm “cases that do not exist, quotes that do not exist, and holdings that do not exist,” according to a filing by Eric Khodadian, who is representing Fa’alagilagi Meni-Siliga.

Meni-Siliga filed her lawsuit in July 2024, naming a contractor and the contractor’s insurance company, a public adjuster and her homeowners insurance company, State Farm, as defendants.

A fire in her home in the city of Carson in 2020 caused her home to become uninhabitable, according to the lawsuit. While her contractor was working on the home, a storm caused water damage. After what she said were delays getting State Farm’s approval for repairs, the work on her home was never completed, according to a January court filing. She and her husband have drained their savings and retirement accounts, declared bankruptcy and lost their home to foreclosure, she wrote.

“My family and I have lost forever our family home,” Meni-Siliga, a U.S. Postal Service carrier, wrote. “We do not come from money… It took many years and sacrifice for our family to purchase our home.”

In its original answer to her complaints, State Farm said negligence by the plaintiff, her contractor and public adjuster led to the injuries and damages she suffered. The insurer also said she failed to bring her legal action within a year of the original loss or damage.

The case is set to go to trial in October.

The legal industry is increasingly turning to AI: 41% of law firms and 47% of corporate legal departments said they are using generative AI, according to one recent survey.

That has meant legal "hallucinations" have become more prevalent, said Daniel Ho, a law professor at Stanford University who has researched the issue. In one paper Ho co-wrote last year, he and fellow researchers found that a couple of companies “overstated” that their legal research tools could guarantee hallucination-free legal citations.

A database of legal hallucinations around the world maintained by a Paris-based legal researcher has found 1,922 cases so far; most of them occurred in the United States.

Last year, a California attorney was fined a record amount, $10,000, for using ChatGPT in an opening brief that contained 21 made-up quotes out of 23.

Khodadian shared his findings at an Aug. 7 conference in Los Angeles Superior Court. He wrote in a filing later that a State Farm lawyer was “visibly enraged” afterward and followed him and his co-counsel down the hall, “repeatedly demanding to see the list” of mistakes they had found.

That lawyer was Kenneth Katel of the firm Musick, Peeler & Garrett, who in his filing apologized to the court and to the plaintiff, explaining that his co-counsel told him she used AI to help prepare some filings.

“I was not aware that AI had been used, but as lead trial counsel I accept full responsibility for our filings,” Katel wrote. He also told the court that his firm has updated its policy about AI use but did not provide specifics.

Katel disputed Khodadian’s characterization of what happened after the hearing, though he wrote “it is accurate to say I was upset given the seriousness of the allegations.”

Khodadian and Katel declined to answer questions from CalMatters.

The lawyer who used AI in motions on behalf of State Farm, Jacquelene Robinson, wrote in a filing that she confirmed there were seven case citations across eight filings “that simply didn’t exist,” as well as some incorrect titles of cases and quotes that were not found in cases she cited.

Robinson said she used an AI tool called Irys, which she incorrectly thought was tied to her law firm’s subscription to a legal research tool called Westlaw, which she thought “performed an internal cite check.” She was mistaken, she wrote.

State Farm is reviewing what happened, spokesperson Tom Hartmann said. “State Farm expects its external counsel to conform to the highest level of ethical standards and professionalism, including confirming the accuracy of all legal filings,” he said.

Hartmann did not respond to questions about how many external law firms represent State Farm, and whether the company asks about their AI policies before hiring them.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Progressive Jane Kim, one of two Democratic candidates for California insurance commissioner, is betting that voters are as hungry for change as those who powered Zohran Mamdani into New York City's mayor's office and Abdul El-Sayed into Michigan's U.S. Senate race after the Democratic Party endorsed her rival, state Sen. Ben Allen.

How it plays out could rest on how engaged voters will be about an elected position they may not know much about; how much weight disillusioned voters give to the state party's endorsement; and how much they respond to ads and mailers that they’ll be bombarded with ahead of the November election.

Kim, a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, is squaring off against Allen to become the regulator of the state’s massive insurance market. Kim wants to establish state-run natural disaster insurance for all and expand low-cost auto insurance to all California drivers, in line with well-known progressive ideas like Medicare for All. Allen wants to stabilize and improve the private insurance market after years of availability and affordability problems largely driven by increased wildfire risk and massive, deadly wildfires.

Kim’s message has struck a chord with many Californians: She got the most votes, more than 27%, among the 11 candidates on the ballot in the June primary. Allen came in second with more than 19%.

“(Kim and Allen are) a microcosm of the fracture going on in the Democratic Party across the country,” said Shauhin Talesh, a law professor at UC Irvine whose expertise includes insurance and consumer protection. “They both think insurance companies should be regulated. The question: How aggressively should California intervene and what role should the government claim?”

Allen recently secured the California Democratic Party’s endorsement, which Talesh said wasn’t surprising because the senator is seen as a more “traditional” candidate.

Kim, whose accomplishments include securing free community college for San Francisco residents and the state’s first $15 minimum wage, was the director of the California Working Families Party, a party within the Democratic umbrella that supports progressive policies including raising the minimum wage. She is backed by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, on whose presidential campaign she worked in 2020.

“Is this going to become another situation where people are speaking with their votes (and going against the establishment)?” Talesh asked. “At what point does Democratic Party recognize it?”

But Kim isn’t just lacking the state party’s endorsement. The insurance industry is, not surprisingly, leery of her plans to have the state play a greater role in insurance. So are some consumer advocacy groups such as Consumer Watchdog, whose founder wrote the ballot initiative that became the state’s insurance law.

Jamie Court, president of the group, warned that a state-run natural disaster insurance fund — which Kim says would be funded by portions of premiums policyholders pay to their insurance companies — would require tens of billions of dollars to start, which he said could be wiped out by one catastrophic fire.

Kim has said that while her proposal would require further study, her critics fail to address that there needs to be more discussion and “public engagement to reform the system.”

“I don’t think just allowing the insurance industry to raise rates is the solution,” she told CalMatters in an interview. “People will lose their homes or go uninsured. And that will wreck the economy.”

Allen told CalMatters that his opponent’s proposal “is effectively a massive subsidy for those who are rich” because their homes will cost more to replace after a fire.

Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, said Kim’s message is resonating with Californians because of “a populist wave, not a progressive wave” nationwide.

He noted that primary results showed Kim did well in historically conservative areas such as the Inland Empire and the Central Valley, as well as in Los Angeles County — which includes Allen’s district.

Considering those results, Jorge Contreras, California director of the Working Families Party, called the state Democratic Party’s endorsement of Allen “out of touch.”

Some delegates for Kim complained their votes did not seem to be counted; Kim called for a recount.

“The votes were counted,” said Robin Swanson, spokesperson for the party. “And recounted. The result was the same.”

Insurance Commissioner candidate Ben Allen delivers remarks during the California Democratic Party convention at Moscone Center in San Francisco on Feb. 21, 2026.

(

Yalonda M. James

/

San Francisco Chronicle via AP

)

Contreras noted that the next day, the California Labor Federation endorsed Kim.

Not everyone buys the "moderate" label being pinned on Allen — including at least one of his own supporters.

“Ben is a progressive by any standard,” said RL Miller, former chair of the California Democratic Party’s Environmental Caucus who also runs a political action committee, Climate Hawks. The group doesn’t endorse in California races, but Miller said she personally endorsed Allen.

“He’s stood with us and authored landmark climate bills over the years,” Miller said, adding that the “tribal nature of Democratic politics these days” might be the reason Allen is being seen as the more moderate candidate.

Allen has a strong track record on the environment, including his work on Proposition 4, the $10 billion bond measure approved by voters in 2024, which includes funding for wildfire prevention. He also authored the law that decreases the use of single-use plastics.

Allen’s votes have also been more aligned with some of the same groups now supporting Kim, including the California Labor Federation. The senator’s record has generally not aligned with business interests, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database.

Though both candidates have pledged not to take money from the insurance industry, Contreras said it’s important to follow the money in this race.

Business groups spent $1.5 million to oppose Kim’s primary campaign, mostly from JOBSPAC, a coalition of employers sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, according to Digital Democracy.

Meanwhile, Contreras said “Ben Allen has taken crypto money, which came in big for him at the end.” Campaign finance records show billionaire Chris Larsen, co-founder of crypto company Ripple, in May gave $1 million to the PAC sponsored by California Environmental Voters, the biggest outside spender supporting Allen’s campaign.

Contreras said billionaires are going to spend a lot of money supporting moderates this election cycle: “Why? Because they want the status quo. Jane is now going to be the bogeyman.”

Jane Kim speaks to supporters during an election night party at El Rio in San Francisco on June 2, 2026.

(

Beth LaBerge

/

KQED

)

The biggest contributors to Kim’s campaign are the California Working Families Party and the California Teachers Association, which gave about $365,000 and $150,000 each, respectively.

The main difference between this battle and other contests going on elsewhere is that many voters don’t know exactly what the insurance commissioner does, said Kevin Liao, a Democratic political consultant who briefly worked on Allen’s campaign before leaving to work on Tom Steyer’s gubernatorial campaign during the primary.

That could mean that voters will rely on shortcuts such as Sanders’ endorsement of Kim, or the California Democrats’ endorsement of Allen. The race could come down to whose brand will convince voters, he said.

“We’re at a moment when voters, certainly the base of the Democratic Party, are fed up with the party establishment,” Liao said.

But not all candidates with more progressive ideas have found success: In California, the progressive Steyer failed to advance to the general election. Recently, David Crowley, a moderate Democrat, beat Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist, in the Democratic primary for Wisconsin governor by less than a percentage point.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Regular reports out of immigrant detention facilities, some as recent as last month, indicate a pattern of complaints: bad water, untrained staff and slow response times to acute and chronic medical conditions.

Despite those complaints — echoed by disability rights groups, a federal judge and the California Justice Department — Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities have received high marks on their own internal scorecards.

An analysis by the Project on Government Oversight found that, under the Trump administration, the number of ICE detention facilities with the agency’s highest inspection grade, “superior,” has tripled since 2024. That coincided, the analysis found, with weakened detention standards and fewer inspections.

Those “superior” ratings have coincided with a rise in deaths in immigration detention custody — 2025 was the deadliest year in ICE custody since 2004.

Four people have died at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center since August 2025, according to the Project on Government Oversight, the most of any facility in the country during that span.

The ratings come from ICE’s Office of Detention Oversight, which also grades the facilities for “deficiencies,” or violations of ICE detention standards. Those failures are important: If a facility fails twice in a row, it can lose federal funding.

“Despite this provision — or perhaps because of it — detention facilities rarely received failing grades from inspectors between fiscal years 2022 and 2026,” the Project on Government Oversight investigators wrote.

ICE detention facilities are holding a record number of people, at least 65,000 on July 11. But even with that skyrocketing custody population, ICE has also found fewer violations among its facilities.

The analysis found that the number of violations at ICE facilities dropped by 68% between 2022 and 2025.

The Project on Government Oversight, which describes itself as a nonpartisan investigative nonprofit, said in its report that ICE did not respond to multiple interview attempts. The nonprofit released its findings this morning and CalMatters is seeking comment from ICE.

When news media organizations reach out to for-profit prison companies that run these detention centers, like GEO Group and CoreCivic, about complaints, they often point to these federal detention standards as a counterpoint to specific allegations.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.