Articles on criminal law, civil litigation, family & corporate law from a Kota-based advocate.
The Federal Court of Canada dismissed a self-represented applicant’s motion appealing the rejection of additional affidavit evidence in a human rights judicial review. The court found the applicant failed to show reviewable error, and the record reflected issues with the applicant’s AI-influenced su
New Jersey’s Appellate Division imposed a $1,000 sanction on plaintiff’s counsel after he cited four non-existent cases in his merits brief and took no corrective action when opposing counsel flagged the fake citations. The court held that failing to correct known AI hallucinations is an independent
In a striking reversal of the typical AI hallucination pattern, Maryland’s Appellate Court published a custody/SIJS opinion that itself contains citation references that are incorrect or do not exist — preserved in the record because they appear in the official court opinion. This case represents th
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.