An Indiana appellate court found that a pro se appellant’s brief contained North Eastern Reporter citations that did not match stated case names — concluding the errors were ‘more likely’ from AI research. Admonishment issued; the trial court’s denial of a protective order was affirmed.
A US appellate court struck an appellant’s brief three times after she repeatedly submitted AI-hallucinated citations — first claiming she filed the wrong draft, then admitting one error while hiding others, and finally submitting a reply brief with another hallucination absent the required AI certi
In the Dominion/MyPillow defamation case, Judge Nina Wang sanctioned defense attorney Christopher Kachouroff $5,000 for misrepresenting a case citation in a post-trial brief — his second sanctions order in the same case, bringing cumulative penalties to $8,000 after earlier AI-hallucination violatio
SDNY Magistrate Judge Gorenstein fined attorney Tricia Lindsay $2,500 under Rule 11 after her opposition briefs cited numerous fabricated cases; Lindsay offered no coherent explanation for the source of the fake citations and failed to confirm they had been manually verified.
Joshua Harris filed a Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit and proceeded to submit fabricated AI-generated citations in four separate filings across three show cause hearings. After being warned repeatedly and given multiple opportunities to comply, he admitted at a hearing that dismissal was an approp
Maryland’s Appellate Court issued an extraordinary editorial note confirming that an official custody opinion contained AI-generated fake citations that have been preserved in the record as written; the court affirmed father’s sole custody despite the embedded legal errors.
Ohio’s 11th Appellate District sanctioned criminal defense attorney William Norman after he filed an application to reopen a murder conviction citing prosecutor quotes that never appeared in the trial record. Admitting under oath, Norman attributed the fabrications to AI use, receiving a public repr
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Amarsingh v. Frontier, 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 Canada court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Hdo v. Mdf, 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 ChatGPT in legal proceedings in Matter of Zareh, 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.