⚡ CASE DIGEST
Hang Zhang v. Daniel Driscoll — N.D. California, 14 January 2026
Pro se plaintiff Hang Zhang cited fictitious cases in her reply brief, then told the court the errors were ‘editing mistakes.’ Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín found this ‘simply not credible’ — comparing the fictitious citations to properly formatted real ones — and held that Zhang had breached Rule 11 and then made it worse by certifying the fake cases as real.
Why it matters: This case adds a new dimension to AI citation misconduct: the cover-up is treated as a separate and aggravating breach. Courts are scrutinising explanations for fictitious citations with the same rigour as the citations themselves.
Category: Hallucinations & Sanctions | Jurisdiction: USA | Read time: 5 min
Case at a Glance
| Full Citation | Hang Zhang v. Daniel Driscoll, Case No. 25-cv-03381-AMO (N.D. Cal.) |
| Court | United States District Court, Northern District of California |
| Date of Decision | 14 January 2026 |
| Category | AI Hallucinations & Sanctions |
| Jurisdiction | USA |
| AI Tool Used | Implied AI tool use — court found ‘editing error’ explanation not credible |
| Judgment / Order | 2026 WL 99759 |
Background
Hang Zhang, proceeding pro se in the Northern District of California, filed a civil complaint against Daniel Driscoll. When she filed a reply brief, it contained citations to cases that did not exist in any legal database. The court issued an order to show cause. Zhang responded, claiming the fictitious citations were the result of ‘editing errors during preparation of my reply brief’ and appended two published circuit court opinions to show she could find real cases. The court found her explanation not credible.
The AI Issue
The court had to decide whether Zhang’s fictitious citations breached Rule 11 and whether her explanation for them was credible. Judge Martínez-Olguín compared the form and content of the fictitious citations to the two real cases Zhang appended to her declaration and found them ‘too far apart to plausibly result from a mere drafting error.’ The court also found that Zhang had exacerbated her breach by certifying the fictitious cases as real and then — upon realising the problem — making further false representations.
- The court found that Zhang breached Rule 11 by citing fictitious cases — the ‘editing error’ explanation was ‘simply not credible’ [Rule 11 violation found].
- Zhang exacerbated the breach by (1) initially certifying the fictitious cases as real and then (2) making further false representations about the errors [aggravated misconduct].
- The court compared the fictitious citations to real ones appended by Zhang and found them too different to plausibly be drafting errors [comparative analysis].
- The Rule 11 duty to investigate caselaw before filing applies to pro se litigants with the same force as to attorneys [equal verification duty].
- Sanctions were imposed — the case is one of the few where a pro se litigant was sanctioned (not just warned) for AI-generated fabricated citations [pro se sanction].
“Comparing the fictitious case citations to the citations of the two cases Zhang appended to her most recent declaration, the form and content of both are too far apart to plausibly result from a mere drafting error. Zhang’s representation regarding her erroneous citation to the fictitious cases in her reply brief is simply not credible.”
— Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, N.D. California, 14 January 2026
The India Angle
Indian Law Equivalent: Under Rule 15 of the Bar Council of India Rules and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, submitting fabricated or non-existent case citations before any Indian court constitutes professional misconduct and contempt. The duty to verify cited authorities is absolute — AI does not create an exception.
Bar Council Rules: BCI Rule 15 (duty not to mislead the court) and Rule 33 (duty to conduct cases with integrity) are directly engaged when AI-generated hallucinated citations are filed. Disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar Council can result in suspension or removal from the roll.
Practical Advice for Indian Advocates: Verify every AI-generated citation on SCC Online, Manupatra, or IndianKanoon before filing. No AI tool — ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any Indian legal AI — reliably produces accurate citations. Treat AI output as a starting point for research, not a final product.
Quick Takeaways
- Covering up AI citation hallucinations with a false explanation is treated as a separate and aggravating breach — making the situation far worse.
- Pro se litigants in the US (and by analogy, India) are subject to the same Rule 11 / verification duty as represented parties.
- If AI-generated citations are discovered, the only appropriate response is full and honest disclosure — not a false ‘editing error’ excuse.