Articles on criminal law, civil litigation, family & corporate law from a Kota-based advocate.
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.
The Hawaii Supreme Court denied a pro se mother’s petition for writ of mandamus in a child support case but cautioned her that her submissions contained multiple inaccurate case citations and unsupported assertions — including a citation to a nonexistent case used to argue the Family Court lacked ju
A Georgia appellate court vacated a child custody order and issued a cautionary note about chatbot use after the pro se appellant’s brief contained incorrect AI-generated citations — while also criticising the attorney on the other side for filing a response brief with no case law citations at all.
A pro se plaintiff who used AI to draft a sanctions motion against a school district — without verifying the citations — was himself hit with $7,032 in sanctions when multiple fabricated citations were found in his filing, despite his completion of a Johns Hopkins AI ethics course.
A Wisconsin federal court sanctioned attorney Paul Wilkins $1,000 after he used the Claude AI platform to draft a brief, had a law clerk find hallucinated quotations, then trusted Claude to correct them — without human review — resulting in new fabrications being filed.
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta dismissed John Boonstra’s employment appeal after discovering his submissions cited at least 13 non-existent cases generated by ChatGPT — with visible ChatGPT footers on the pages containing the fabricated authority.
Oregon’s Court of Appeals sanctioned pro se appellant Heather Boersma $500 for filing a brief with multiple fabricated cases and unrelated citations. Critically, she had been warned about identical citation problems in a separate simultaneous appeal — and took no steps to ensure the brief in this ca