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.
Pennsylvania’s Superior Court decided a grandmother vs. mother custody appeal where the mother’s pro se appellate brief contained AI-hallucinated citations — now flagged by Westlaw’s Editor’s Note. While the court vacated and remanded on substantive grounds (failure to apply the biological parent pr
The Ontario Labour Relations Board addressed AI use in union certification proceedings after the union flagged that the responding employer’s submissions appeared to have been prepared using artificial intelligence. The Board noted the submissions were replete with allegations about the union’s cond
A pro se plaintiff in New York fabricated statutory language and invented quotes from real US Supreme Court cases in insurance filings, leading to a filing injunction under Rule 11 and the court’s inherent authority, with dismissal of all claims.
A pro se Alaska Native shareholder filed a 70-page complaint challenging a 643,000-acre land transfer and subsequent mining leases under ANCSA. The court dismissed the case for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, finding the claims arose under state law despite involving federal statutory l
A pro se petitioner appealing his wrongful removal by the U.S. Army filed briefs stuffed with AI-hallucinated case citations before the Federal Circuit. The court issued a pointed warning: fabricated citations are sanctionable and can result in dismissal, even for self-represented litigants.
California’s First District Court of Appeal published a landmark warning extending AI hallucination sanctions to self-represented litigants after respondent Thomas Panas used generative AI to draft a brief citing two non-existent cases. The court reversed the child support order on the merits while
A Canada court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in 14095863, 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 Efd Usa v. Band, 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 Lindsey Newell v. The, 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.