A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Seth Cameron Virgil v. Experian, 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.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court published a decision in a car loan dispute where court submissions contained AI/LLM-generated citations to cases that do not exist. The Westlaw annotation explicitly identifies large language model (LLM) hallucinations as the source, marking one of the first state appellate courts to use that specific terminology.
The Appellate Court of Maryland flagged non-existent case citations in a divorce appeal brief — citations that did not exist and were likely AI-generated. The Westlaw editor’s note explicitly identifies the decision as containing ‘incorrect or non-existent’ references, a pattern courts are increasingly calling out.
A federal patent court in Kansas ordered all signing attorneys for patent plaintiff Lexos Media to show cause why they should not be sanctioned and referred to disciplinary administrators for submitting AI-generated defective legal citations in both a summary judgment response and an expert witness brief.