Law360 (June 26, 2026, 4:27 PM EDT) -- The Church of Scientology has asked the California Supreme Court to review an appellate order that didn't impose sanctions on Boies Schiller Flexner LLP for filing a brief containing artificial intelligence-generated citation errors in a harassment and retaliation suit pending against the church.

In a petition filed Thursday, the Los Angeles-based church told the state Supreme Court that while it had anticipated a ruling on whether plaintiff's counsel would be ordered to pay fee sanctions after admitting to misusing generative text in a 2025 brief, all it has heard from the lower appellate court is "silence."

"The bar is watching, as plaintiffs' counsel's transgression was heavily publicized," the Church of Scientology argued. "While courts across California and the nation have responded to AI abuse with published guidance and meaningful sanctions, this court alone stayed silent. That silence matters."

The church's high court petition comes weeks after a three-judge Second Appellate District panel issued an opinion on pending motions that did not acknowledge an earlier notice of potential financial sanctions against John J. Kucera, the Boies Schiller partner who submitted the faulty brief.

Boies Schiller represents Chrissie Carnell Bixler, Cedric Bixler-Zavala, Marie Bobette Riales and two Jane Does in their suit against the Church of Scientology and several related entities. The women filed suit in 2019 alleging they suffered a "relentless campaign of harassment, surveillance, threats and defamation" after they reported that prominent church member and actor Danny Masterson raped them.

The citation errors came to light in September when counsel for the church identified numerous attribution and citation errors in a July brief and Kucera filed a motion asking the appellate court to strike the brief in its entirety and grant permission to submit a substitute filing.

At the time, Kucera took full responsibility for the errors, writing he was the "sole firm partner" in charge of preparing and filing the brief.

In February, Second Appellate District Justice Carl H. Moor issued a notice of potential sanctions in light of "at least ten purported case authorities that have been miscited or mischaracterized in more than fifteen places in respondents' brief."

Judge Moor said at the time the court was considering imposing monetary sanctions under the California Rules of Court.

The plaintiffs responded on March 3, holding "that the errors should not have occurred, any sanctions should be directed toward counsel and not [the] respondents, and BSF is fully committed to the responsible use of artificial intelligence."

Kucera withdrew his representation on March 9 and entered the public sector as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, according to information available online.

The court held oral arguments later that month. On May 19, the judges issued their opinion on pending motions but did not mention the AI errors or potential for sanctions.

The church filed a petition for rehearing on June 3 seeking clarity on the issue of sanctions.

"Although the court issued an order to show cause identifying the basis for sanctions and signaling that the issue would be argued alongside the merits, the court addressed sanctions neither at oral argument nor in its opinion," the Church of Scientology argued.

"If the court does not intend to issue a separate order, it should grant this petition, address sanctions, and award the church the fees incurred as a direct result of plaintiffs' counsel's ethical violations," the church added.

The panel denied the petition for rehearing on June 15 without explanation.

Thursday's high court petition said the primary question in is, "Does a court have discretion to ignore an attorney's admitted abuse of artificial intelligence that violated the California Rules of Court, or is the court required to resolve whether to sanction that attorney and explain the reasoning for its decision?"

Jeremy B. Rosen of Horvitz & Levy LLP, counsel for the Church of Scientology, told Law360 in an email that "to date, every lawyer in the country caught using fake AI citations in their briefs has faced severe sanctions."

Rosen said the Church of Scientology has incurred expenses in identifying the errors and raising the issue before the appellate court.

"The Court of Appeal's opinion sends a troubling message to the public and the bar: either elite lawyers are held to a different standard, or the rules change when the Church of Scientology is the victim," Rosen said. "Neither is acceptable in a nation founded on the principle of 'equal justice under law.'"

Counsel for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Alison L. Anderson and Maxwell V. Pritt  of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and Simon Leen of the Freedman Firm PC.

The Church of Scientology is represented by Jeffrey L. Steinfeld of Winston Taylor and Jeremy B. Rosen and Jasjaap S. Sidhu of Horvitz & Levy LLP.

The case is Chrissie Carnell Bixler et al. v. Church of Scientology International et al., case number B339009, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District.

--Additional reporting by Dorothy Atkins. Editing by Alex Hubbard.

Update: This article was updated to accurately name counsel appearing in the matter.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.