How courts and legislatures are treating Artificial Intelligence — case tracker, analysis, and India angle.
In Morgan v. V2X, a Virginia federal magistrate ordered detailed logging and segregation protocols for AI tools used during litigation, treating AI-assisted legal work like any other potentially privileged electronic data. The ruling establishes that parties using AI in active litigation must be prepared to identify, log, and defend every AI-generated work product claimed as privileged or protected.
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
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
The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld an arbitration award against a former Dell employee and formally warned the pro se appellant about apparent AI misuse in his reply brief — adding to a growing body of circuit-level AI accountability rulings.
Judge Otis Wright of the Central District of California sanctioned plaintiff’s counsel $2,500 for using AI-generated fictitious citations three times — including attempting to conceal the misconduct — and ordered the attorney to file a disclosure declaration in every case he actively handles.
