How courts and legislatures are treating Artificial Intelligence — case tracker, analysis, and India angle.
A New York federal court sanctioned attorneys Levidow, Levidow & Oberman after they submitted a ChatGPT-generated brief citing six entirely fabricated cases, refused to acknowledge the errors when challenged, and then doubled down by filing fraudulent “confirmation” letters. The $5,000 sanction and
Ohio’s Eleventh District Court of Appeals sanctioned Attorney William Norman with a $2,000 fine, disciplinary referral, and a two-year court-notification requirement after his paralegal used ChatGPT to fabricate prosecutor quotes in a murder appeal, exposing a systemic failure in AI oversight.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found a self-represented complainant’s reconsideration submissions ‘appear to be the product of artificial intelligence’ — with non-existent cases and dramatically incorrect statements of Tribunal Rules. The Adjudicator invoked Ontario’s AI Practice Direction and
A Pennsylvania federal court sanctioned attorney Rajan $5,000 and ordered him to complete AI-specific CLE courses after he cited fictitious cases in an omnibus motion — his second AI-citation violation in the same case, with cumulative sanctions now exceeding $73,000.
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a contract enforcement order against a pro se defendant and publicly warned him that future unverified AI use could trigger sanctions — marking its disapproval with a ChatGPT-generated limerick about vanishing case citations.
A California attorney representing herself in a foreclosure dispute was sanctioned after the court found she placed quotation marks around sentences that never appeared in the cited opinions. The court held her to a higher standard than ordinary pro se litigants and found deliberate intent to mislea
A defendant attorney who used AI to draft a special motion to dismiss admitted to the court that AI wrote the brief. After finding eight problematic citations, the court excised the AI-generated portions and decided the motion on the statutory framework alone — denying the motion and holding that de
Florida’s 6th District Court of Appeal dismissed a certiorari petition and issued a show cause order against attorney Karin Gerardin after her AI-assisted filing cited non-existent cases and misrepresented actual holdings. The court warned it will refer attorneys to The Florida Bar for AI-related mi
A Toronto family lawyer filed a factum containing AI-generated fake case citations in an Ontario Superior Court family law motion. The court issued a show cause order for contempt — the first in Ontario history over AI hallucinations — then dismissed it after the lawyer apologised and pledged CPD training, while ordering the client not be billed for the worthless research.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Clinco v. Commissionner, 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.