Articles on criminal law, civil litigation, family & corporate law from a Kota-based advocate.
A C.D. California judge issued a show cause order threatening $2,500 in sanctions or dismissal after plaintiffs’ counsel misrepresented case holdings and included a non-existent quotation in a banking brief — and then failed to correct the errors even after defendants identified them in a reply.
Florida attorney Jeffrey Sullivan admitted using ChatGPT to research and draft a motion to dismiss that cited non-existent cases. Judge Mizelle imposed a minimal but public sanction: Sullivan was ordered to send his client copies of the show-cause order and this ruling, effectively turning client di
California’s First District Court of Appeal published a landmark warning extending AI hallucination sanctions to self-represented litigants after respondent Thomas Panas used generative AI to draft a brief citing two non-existent cases. The court reversed the child support order on the merits while
Louisiana attorney Ross LeBlanc admitted using EVE AI to draft motions that contained a fabricated quote from a real case. He voluntarily withdrew the briefs and wrote a candid apology letter to the court, acknowledging AI verification failures even where he believed safeguards were in place.
A Minnesota pro se litigant’s complaint was dismissed after the trial court found he ‘repeatedly cited nonexistent legal authority.’ The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal as non-appealable, finding the without-prejudice dismissal did not affect his substantial rights.
A pro se Cuban national fighting USCIS naturalization delays cited a fabricated Supreme Court quotation and misread a 1926 precedent. Judge Abelson warned of sanctions and remanded, confirming courts hold self-represented litigants to the same standard as attorneys on AI hallucinations.
Florida’s 6th District Court of Appeal dismissed a certiorari petition and issued a show cause order against attorney Karin Gerardin after her AI-assisted filing cited non-existent cases and misrepresented actual holdings. The court warned it will refer attorneys to The Florida Bar for AI-related mi
A self-represented appellant in a California divorce case submitted briefs to the Court of Appeal riddled with fictitious case citations — cases that do not exist, cases disapproved by the Supreme Court, and cases cited for propositions they do not support. The court named each fabricated citation o
UK County Court Judge Grimshaw referred two AML Legal solicitors to the SRA after AI-generated appeal documents containing fictitious case citations were filed without verification. The ruling, published on the Judiciary website, holds that reckless AI use by qualified lawyers is inexcusable.
A Maryland federal court dismissed an employment discrimination claim and held a sanctions hearing after pro se plaintiff Devin Robinson’s response brief cited non-existent cases and fabricated quotations, which Robinson attributed to AI assistance. The court dismissed all claims with prejudice, fin