Articles on criminal law, civil litigation, family & corporate law from a Kota-based advocate.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Andre Legarza v. Northern, examining whether AI-generated content in court submissions met professional standards. The decision adds to the growing body of case law holding lawyers accountable for unverified AI-generated citations and arguments.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in 2026fc185, examining whether AI-generated content in court submissions met professional standards. The decision adds to the growing body of case law holding lawyers accountable for unverified AI-generated citations and arguments.
A Canada court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in 14095863, examining whether AI-generated content in court submissions met professional standards. The decision adds to the growing body of case law holding lawyers accountable for unverified AI-generated citations and arguments.
The BC Supreme Court ordered a lawyer to pay personal costs after she submitted two fictitious ChatGPT-generated cases in a family law parenting application — one of the first Canadian cases to impose direct financial consequences on a lawyer for AI hallucinations, and triggering a judicial review of all her other files.
Alabama’s Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in a trust fiduciary dispute after the appellant’s attorney filed briefs riddled with fabricated and misquoted AI-generated citations. The court awarded $17,200 in attorneys’ fees against the lawyer personally and referred him to the Alabama State Bar — one of the most severe appellate AI-hallucination consequences in US legal history.
Colorado attorney Zachariah C. Crabill received a 90-day suspension from the Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge for submitting ChatGPT-generated fictional case citations in a motion — then lying to the trial judge by blaming a non-existent intern. It is among the earliest and most comprehensive attorney discipline decisions in the AI hallucination era.
A Toronto family lawyer filed a factum containing AI-generated fake case citations in an Ontario Superior Court family law motion. The court issued a show cause order for contempt — the first in Ontario history over AI hallucinations — then dismissed it after the lawyer apologised and pledged CPD training, while ordering the client not be billed for the worthless research.
Attorney Jae S. Lee cited a non-existent case generated by ChatGPT in her appellate brief. The Second Circuit referred her to its Grievance Panel — the first U.S. Court of Appeals to impose formal disciplinary consequences for AI-generated fake citations.
A Massachusetts Superior Court denied a Morgan & Morgan attorney’s pro hac vice application based on his prior Wyoming AI sanction — where Morgan & Morgan’s in-house ‘MX2.law’ AI platform generated 8 hallucinated case citations that the attorney signed without reading. AI sanctions now travel across
The BC Civil Resolution Tribunal found a self-represented strata owner’s submissions cited non-existent CRT cases, incorrect citations, and a Strata Property Act subsection that does not exist — identifying these as ‘likely hallucinations generated by artificial intelligence.’