Plaintiff’s counsel in a BART transit lawsuit filed an opposition brief containing three non-existent case citations — likely AI hallucinations — and then failed to respond to the court’s show cause order entirely. The court imposed a $1,000 sanction, referred the matter to the California State Bar,
The Chief Justice of Texas’ First Court of Appeals issued a concurring opinion specifically to address what appeared to be AI-fabricated citations in a mandamus petition. The concurrence warned that filing documents with fictitious or misleading citations violates counsel’s duty of candour, and thre
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.
The BC Supreme Court ordered a lawyer to pay personal costs after she submitted two fictitious ChatGPT-generated cases in a family law parenting application — one of the first Canadian cases to impose direct financial consequences on a lawyer for AI hallucinations, and triggering a judicial review of all her other files.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Davis v. American, examining whether AI-generated content in court submissions met professional standards. The decision adds to the growing body of case law holding lawyers accountable for unverified AI-generated citations and arguments.
A USA court addressed the use of AI/LLM tool in legal proceedings in Keith POWELL, examining whether AI-generated content in court submissions met professional standards. The decision adds to the growing body of case law holding lawyers accountable for unverified AI-generated citations and arguments.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Quintaurus L Johnson v. Department, examining whether AI-generated content in court submissions met professional standards. The decision adds to the growing body of case law holding lawyers accountable for unverified AI-generated citations and arguments.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Ravi Kadiyala v. Shellpoint, examining whether AI-generated content in court submissions met professional standards. The decision adds to the growing body of case law holding lawyers accountable for unverified AI-generated citations and arguments.
An Australian federal court found that a self-represented bankruptcy applicant had relied on AI-generated legal authorities that did not exist — but showed leniency because the applicant was unrepresented, acknowledged AI use, and did not press the fictitious authorities when challenged. The court distinguished this from lawyer misconduct.
A federal court in Michigan denied a motion for relief from judgment in a case where Westlaw editors flagged the filed submissions as containing non-existent citations generated by ChatGPT and OpenAI tools. The case is another data point in the escalating judicial reckoning with generative AI in legal practice.