Articles on criminal law, civil litigation, family & corporate law from a Kota-based advocate.
A Nevada federal court dismissed a pro se plaintiff’s case with prejudice after he repeatedly submitted filings containing misrepresented and non-existent case law — even after multiple explicit Rule 11 warnings and the threat of case-dispositive sanctions. The court found no satisfactory explanatio
An Illinois federal court denied a sanctions motion against a pro se plaintiff in a legal malpractice case but warned that any further false citations may result in dismissal using the court’s inherent authority. The case illustrates how courts increasingly treat AI-generated citation errors as a fi
A California appellate court affirmed a vexatious litigant order against a pro se appellant who submitted fabricated quotations from real cases across his opening and reply briefs. The court documented specific invented passages in its published opinion and issued a formal warning.
An Indiana appellate court found that a pro se appellant’s brief contained North Eastern Reporter citations that did not match stated case names — concluding the errors were ‘more likely’ from AI research. Admonishment issued; the trial court’s denial of a protective order was affirmed.
Texas’s Seventh Court of Appeals upheld $14,271.25 in attorney’s fees against a pro se plaintiff whose AI-generated brief cited non-existent cases and contained fabricated quotations from real cases, with the trial court having already warned her that AI use does not excuse misrepresentations.
A Pennsylvania Superior Court suspected AI drafting after finding a stepmother’s custody appeal brief cited cases that did not support claimed propositions. The court warned that AI-hallucinated citations risk waiving the arguments they purport to support under Pennsylvania appellate rules.
A Colorado federal court sanctioned attorneys for MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell $6,000 for submitting AI-generated fictitious citations in election-related litigation — demonstrating that no area of law is exempt from AI verification duties.
A California federal court sanctioned Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates $31,100 after lawyers used three AI tools to generate fictitious case citations — and verified none of them against authoritative legal databases.
California attorney Amir Mostafavi was sanctioned $10,000 after courts discovered 21 fictitious ChatGPT-generated citations across multiple filings — a case study in how repeat AI citation misconduct escalates professional consequences.
A Wyoming federal court fined Morgan & Morgan and MX2.law $5,000 each for submitting AI-hallucinated case citations in a Walmart personal injury suit — the first dual-firm AI sanctions in a single case.