A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Raul Gonzales Davila v. Roblen, 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 federal court in Oklahoma warned an attorney that future AI-generated fake citations could lead to sanctions or the striking of filings. Though no sanctions were imposed this time, the court’s rebuke signals escalating judicial intolerance for unverified AI-generated legal research.
Attorney Maren Bam’s Rule 11 sanctions for recklessly filing AI-generated unverified citations in a Social Security case were largely vacated on appeal — because the sua sponte sanction process was not followed correctly. But her pro hac vice status in the case was revoked and her opening brief was struck, leaving real professional consequences.
A Chicago pro se plaintiff brought Fair Housing Act claims against his landlords, but his filings contained references to cases that do not exist. The N.D. Illinois court granted dismissal of some claims while flagging the hallucinated citations in its published opinion.
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.
An S.D.N.Y. Magistrate Judge used the explicit term ‘AI-generated hallucination’ after finding a quoted passage attributed to a real case was not in that case or anywhere on Westlaw. Admonishment issued with a clear verification duty order — and a rare note of judicial empathy for pro se AI use.
A Georgia federal court denied a pro se plaintiff’s motion to strike, noting that the brief cited non-existent cases and explicitly warning that while there is no prohibition on using AI in litigation, pro se litigants must not cite fake opinions — failure to comply with Rule 11 may result in moneta
Parents suing a school district over the sexual exploitation of their disabled child found their lawyers undermined by AI-hallucinated case citations. The court flagged multiple phantom authorities in the plaintiffs’ brief while largely allowing their substantive claims — Title IX, ADA, and First Am
A tenant’s appeal to the UK Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) failed partly because he insisted — wrongly — that a Supreme Court case authorised his application for a rent repayment order. The Tribunal noted the transcript contained references to AI and suspected he was misled by an AI hallucination ab
An Ontario Superior Court judge found seven fabricated quotations in a Reply Factum attributed to real cases with correct CanLII citations. Counsel denied AI use but the court found the denial implausible, referred the matter to the Law Society of Ontario, and observed that ‘the cover-up may be wors