A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Flycatcher v. Affable, 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 Mardis v. Dealer, 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 Rios v. Puente, 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 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 Delaware Court of Chancery judge noted that a petitioner’s brief contained several incorrect citations and warned that the use of generative AI to prepare court submissions without verifying accuracy is harmful to the legal system — even in estate and probate proceedings.
A Massachusetts federal court referred attorney Roger Peace to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers after he submitted AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority and gave an evasive response to the court’s show-cause order. The referral — rather than a direct sanction — represents a new mechanism for AI citation accountability.
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 Western District of Oklahoma court denied a plaintiff’s motion in limine after finding that cited Tenth Circuit cases did not support the propositions for which they were cited — a pattern consistent with AI-generated mischaracterization. The court warned that such mischaracterizations, whether fr
Pro se plaintiffs in a cryptocurrency credit line dispute cited a repealed Indiana statute and a nonexistent Seventh Circuit case — prompting a judicial warning that AI may have assisted the filings. No sanctions, but the court explicitly invoked the Seventh Circuit’s AI accuracy warning.
Texas’s Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed a foreclosure judgment and separately identified that a citation in the appellants’ reply brief appeared to be a hallucinated case from this court that could not be located after extensive research.