British Columbia Supreme Court struck the legal basis section of a pro se plaintiff’s civil claim after identifying apparent AI hallucinations, including references to non-existent cases, and ordered that any future AI-assisted filings must verify all cases before submission.
In Arkansas’s first-ever published ruling on AI-hallucinated citations, the Court of Appeals dismissed a pro se appellant’s entire appeal because his brief cited multiple cases that simply do not exist in any legal database. The court issued a comprehensive warning about AI use in appellate practice
UK County Court Judge Grimshaw referred two AML Legal solicitors to the SRA after AI-generated appeal documents containing fictitious case citations were filed without verification. The ruling, published on the Judiciary website, holds that reckless AI use by qualified lawyers is inexcusable.
A Massachusetts Superior Court denied a Morgan & Morgan attorney’s pro hac vice application based on his prior Wyoming AI sanction — where Morgan & Morgan’s in-house ‘MX2.law’ AI platform generated 8 hallucinated case citations that the attorney signed without reading. AI sanctions now travel across
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Button v. Mccawley, 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 In re Telexfree Securities Litigation, 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 Nydia Rosario 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 Villalovos Guttierez, 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 Pennsylvania federal court addressed large language model (LLM) hallucinations in an immigration detainee’s habeas petition while ordering a bond hearing for the Ghanaian permanent resident. The case is notable for its use of ‘LLM’ terminology in a published immigration decision.