The US Seventh Circuit admonished a petitioner’s attorney for including AI-generated non-existent citations and a false quotation in an immigration appeal brief — but imposed no financial penalty, signalling that a formal admonishment from a circuit court carries its own significant weight.
A Mississippi federal court ordered plaintiff’s attorney Aaron Randall Rice to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11 after his opposition brief cited a fictitious Fifth Circuit case and included fabricated quotes from real decisions.
In a follow-up sanctions order in an employment discrimination case, the court sanctioned the senior named partner of a law firm after the firm’s associate used AI to draft a brief containing a fabricated citation. The supervising attorney argued he did not draft the brief and was unaware — the cour
A Maryland federal court dismissed an employment discrimination claim and held a sanctions hearing after pro se plaintiff Devin Robinson’s response brief cited non-existent cases and fabricated quotations, which Robinson attributed to AI assistance. The court dismissed all claims with prejudice, fin
The BC Civil Resolution Tribunal found a self-represented strata owner’s submissions cited non-existent CRT cases, incorrect citations, and a Strata Property Act subsection that does not exist — identifying these as ‘likely hallucinations generated by artificial intelligence.’
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
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