A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Blazy v. State, 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/LLM tool in legal proceedings in In re Marrett GFXYwRZ, 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 Nonnie Berg v. United, 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 United States Of America v. 2, 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.
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 Bombay High Court awarded adverse costs against a litigant after counsel submitted a legal brief containing multiple AI-hallucinated citations — cases that simply did not exist. The court held that relying on fabricated precedent without verification constituted a breach of professional duty, and that judges’ time is too valuable to be wasted correcting lawyers’ AI-generated errors.
New Jersey’s Appellate Division imposed a $1,000 sanction on plaintiff’s counsel after he cited four non-existent cases in his merits brief and took no corrective action when opposing counsel flagged the fake citations. The court held that failing to correct known AI hallucinations is an independent
A Georgia appellate court vacated a child custody order and issued a cautionary note about chatbot use after the pro se appellant’s brief contained incorrect AI-generated citations — while also criticising the attorney on the other side for filing a response brief with no case law citations at all.
A Korean contractor’s ASBCA surreply was struck after 27 problematic citations were found, including 16 to non-existent cases — but the Board declined to dismiss the entire $100M+ contract appeal as too severe. The Board found a ‘lack of candour’ about how the AI-generated errors arose, denying the