Articles on criminal law, civil litigation, family & corporate law from a Kota-based advocate.
In the Dominion/MyPillow defamation case, Judge Nina Wang sanctioned defense attorney Christopher Kachouroff $5,000 for misrepresenting a case citation in a post-trial brief — his second sanctions order in the same case, bringing cumulative penalties to $8,000 after earlier AI-hallucination violatio
Pro se plaintiffs in a cryptocurrency credit line dispute cited a repealed Indiana statute and a nonexistent Seventh Circuit case — prompting a judicial warning that AI may have assisted the filings. No sanctions, but the court explicitly invoked the Seventh Circuit’s AI accuracy warning.
A California Central District court granted a motion to dismiss a civil rights complaint while noting that plaintiff’s counsel cited cases with inaccurate descriptions — characteristic of AI-hallucinated briefs. The ‘Editor’s Note’ flag on the Westlaw opinion indicates courts and publishers are now
Judge Otis Wright of the Central District of California sanctioned plaintiff’s counsel $2,500 for using AI-generated fictitious citations three times — including attempting to conceal the misconduct — and ordered the attorney to file a disclosure declaration in every case he actively handles.
A Georgia federal court denied a pro se plaintiff’s motion to strike, noting that the brief cited non-existent cases and explicitly warning that while there is no prohibition on using AI in litigation, pro se litigants must not cite fake opinions — failure to comply with Rule 11 may result in moneta
The Ontario Labour Relations Board addressed AI use in union certification proceedings after the union flagged that the responding employer’s submissions appeared to have been prepared using artificial intelligence. The Board noted the submissions were replete with allegations about the union’s cond
A Southern District of New York magistrate judge found that a pro se plaintiff’s procedural letter to the court contained five citations that did not support their cited propositions, three quotes from cases that did not appear in those cases, and one citation to a nonexistent judicial opinion — all
A Wisconsin federal court found AI-hallucinated citations in a pro se complaint — including citations that led to entirely unrelated cases — and warned plaintiffs that hallucinations are ‘fundamentally incompatible with our justice system’ while ordering compliance with Rule 11.
A pro se plaintiff in Louisiana received a $500 Rule 11 sanction after filing multiple briefs with AI-fabricated citations — continuing the pattern even after a court warning, self-audit order, and show-cause hearing. Dismissal now looms as the next step.
A Pennsylvania federal court sanctioned attorney Rajan $5,000 and ordered him to complete AI-specific CLE courses after he cited fictitious cases in an omnibus motion — his second AI-citation violation in the same case, with cumulative sanctions now exceeding $73,000.