How courts and legislatures are treating Artificial Intelligence — case tracker, analysis, and India angle.
A tenant’s appeal to the UK Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) failed partly because he insisted — wrongly — that a Supreme Court case authorised his application for a rent repayment order. The Tribunal noted the transcript contained references to AI and suspected he was misled by an AI hallucination ab
An Ontario Superior Court judge found seven fabricated quotations in a Reply Factum attributed to real cases with correct CanLII citations. Counsel denied AI use but the court found the denial implausible, referred the matter to the Law Society of Ontario, and observed that ‘the cover-up may be wors
Florida attorney Jeffrey Sullivan admitted using ChatGPT to research and draft a motion to dismiss that cited non-existent cases. Judge Mizelle imposed a minimal but public sanction: Sullivan was ordered to send his client copies of the show-cause order and this ruling, effectively turning client di
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in 2026fc185, 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 FLORA CHUMPITAZ MORALES DSTC, 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 Generative AI tool in legal proceedings in Ledoux v. Outliers, 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 Australia court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in RYJZ and Commissioner of Taxation Taxation 2026 ARTA 182 12 February 2026, 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.
The Appellate Court of Maryland flagged non-existent case citations in a divorce appeal brief — citations that did not exist and were likely AI-generated. The Westlaw editor’s note explicitly identifies the decision as containing ‘incorrect or non-existent’ references, a pattern courts are increasingly calling out.
Australia’s Fair Work Commission dismissed an unfair dismissal application while noting that the self-represented applicant had used a ‘legally trained’ AI model, some of whose legal references appeared to be AI hallucinations. The applicant conceded these when challenged — a factor the Commission treated sympathetically.
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.