How courts and legislatures are treating Artificial Intelligence — case tracker, analysis, and India angle.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Jackson v. Bok, 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 Palsen v. Chevrolet, 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 Wells Fargo v. Dean, 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 Massachusetts federal court referred attorney Roger Peace to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers after he submitted AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority and gave an evasive response to the court’s show-cause order. The referral — rather than a direct sanction — represents a new mechanism for AI citation accountability.
The British Columbia Supreme Court addressed AI hallucinations by self-represented plaintiffs in costs submissions following a successful civil judgment. The plaintiffs cited non-existent cases in their costs arguments, leading Justice Blok to address the AI-generated fabrications in a published costs judgment — one of the first Canadian provincial court decisions to do so.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, allowed the Revenue to withdraw its own order after conceding it had relied on AI-generated case citations that could not be verified. The episode — a tax authority undoing its own decision because of AI hallucinations — is a rare instance of a government body acknowledging and correcting AI-assisted legal error.
An Indiana appellate court found that a pro se appellant’s brief contained North Eastern Reporter citations that did not match stated case names — concluding the errors were ‘more likely’ from AI research. Admonishment issued; the trial court’s denial of a protective order was affirmed.
A US appellate court struck an appellant’s brief three times after she repeatedly submitted AI-hallucinated citations — first claiming she filed the wrong draft, then admitting one error while hiding others, and finally submitting a reply brief with another hallucination absent the required AI certi
In the Dominion/MyPillow defamation case, Judge Nina Wang sanctioned defense attorney Christopher Kachouroff $5,000 for misrepresenting a case citation in a post-trial brief — his second sanctions order in the same case, bringing cumulative penalties to $8,000 after earlier AI-hallucination violatio
SDNY Magistrate Judge Gorenstein fined attorney Tricia Lindsay $2,500 under Rule 11 after her opposition briefs cited numerous fabricated cases; Lindsay offered no coherent explanation for the source of the fake citations and failed to confirm they had been manually verified.
