Articles on criminal law, civil litigation, family & corporate law from a Kota-based advocate.
A junior attorney at the New Orleans City Attorney’s office used ChatGPT to find supporting cases for a motion to dismiss and submitted nine non-existent citations without checking them. The supervising attorney, who reviewed the brief but failed to verify the unusual bullet-pointed citations, was s
A California attorney representing herself in a foreclosure dispute was sanctioned after the court found she placed quotation marks around sentences that never appeared in the cited opinions. The court held her to a higher standard than ordinary pro se litigants and found deliberate intent to mislea
A California federal court ordered attorney Kevin Little to show cause why he should not be sanctioned after his opposition brief displayed three hallmarks of AI hallucination: non-existent cases, fabricated quotes from real cases, and unsupported legal representations.
British Columbia Supreme Court struck the legal basis section of a pro se plaintiff’s civil claim after identifying apparent AI hallucinations, including references to non-existent cases, and ordered that any future AI-assisted filings must verify all cases before submission.
A Mississippi federal court ordered plaintiff’s attorney Aaron Randall Rice to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11 after his opposition brief cited a fictitious Fifth Circuit case and included fabricated quotes from real decisions.
Maine federal judge imposed non-monetary sanctions on attorney Kelly Guagenty after she used Claude or ChatGPT to generate case citations that were fabricated, then filed a Notice of Errata that introduced additional inaccuracies. The sanction focused on education: attending AI CLE, creating firm AI
The Arizona federal court resolved post-judgment asset freeze disputes in the FTC enforcement action against James Noland, affirming a $7.3 million fraud judgment; this case does not involve AI hallucinations and is noted for context only.
A pro se maintenance technician alleging sexual harassment and retaliation by Sherwin-Williams filed a prolific docket of motions, with the court noting potential AI-assisted research errors. Several Title VII claims were dismissed while others survive pending amendment, illustrating how AI use by u
SDNY Magistrate Judge Gorenstein fined attorney Tricia Lindsay $2,500 under Rule 11 after her opposition briefs cited numerous fabricated cases; Lindsay offered no coherent explanation for the source of the fake citations and failed to confirm they had been manually verified.
Texas’s Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed a foreclosure judgment and separately identified that a citation in the appellants’ reply brief appeared to be a hallucinated case from this court that could not be located after extensive research.