Gregory Hardy filed the same AI-hallucinated motion to consolidate in Hardy v. Jones as he had in his other cases, repeating fake quotations from Berndt v. Tennessee and United States v. Frazier. The court struck the motion and issued a final warning: the next instance of fabricated citations or imp
A New York federal court sanctioned attorneys Levidow, Levidow & Oberman after they submitted a ChatGPT-generated brief citing six entirely fabricated cases, refused to acknowledge the errors when challenged, and then doubled down by filing fraudulent “confirmation” letters. The $5,000 sanction and
Ohio’s Eleventh District Court of Appeals sanctioned Attorney William Norman with a $2,000 fine, disciplinary referral, and a two-year court-notification requirement after his paralegal used ChatGPT to fabricate prosecutor quotes in a murder appeal, exposing a systemic failure in AI oversight.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Alberti v. Dc, 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 Fung v. Liberty, 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 Martin v. Ods, 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 Ryan Lee v. Capital, 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 Florida federal court held a sanctions hearing over AI-generated fake citations submitted in two consolidated employment cases, warning that ‘the use of AI as a legal research tool does not alter’ lawyers’ basic ethical obligation to provide true and accurate citations to the court.
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.
A Michigan federal court remanded a Social Security disability case while warning plaintiff’s counsel that a cited case — Fleck v. Commissioner of Social Security — appeared to be a ‘phantom’ case likely generated by AI. The court warned that future AI-generated unconfirmed citations could result in sanctions.