How courts and legislatures are treating Artificial Intelligence — case tracker, analysis, and India angle.
A Delaware Court of Chancery judge noted that a petitioner’s brief contained several incorrect citations and warned that the use of generative AI to prepare court submissions without verifying accuracy is harmful to the legal system — even in estate and probate proceedings.
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.
In Tym v. Cerno, a California federal court confirmed that the specific prompts a lawyer types into an AI system can themselves constitute protected opinion work product, because they reveal counsel’s mental impressions and litigation strategy. The ruling extends classic work-product doctrine into the AI era, shielding lawyer-AI interactions from compelled disclosure in discovery.
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
Texas’s Seventh Court of Appeals upheld $14,271.25 in attorney’s fees against a pro se plaintiff whose AI-generated brief cited non-existent cases and contained fabricated quotations from real cases, with the trial court having already warned her that AI use does not excuse misrepresentations.