AI Failure Index
AI Failures in Legal Services
Legal AI failures are documented inside court filings. The receipts are the docket.
- Incidents
- 73
- Highest severity
- Catastrophic
- Sources cited
- 185
- Newest indexed
- Jul 17, 2026
Open all 73 in the research console
The 11th Circuit referred Anthony Sabatini for replacing eight hallucinated cases with eight more
On July 10, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit published Estate of Lane Caviness v. Atlas Air (No. 24-11033), reprimanding Florida lawyer and Lake County Commissioner Anthony Sabatini for briefs 'replete with fake and hallucinated citations.' His opening brief relied on at least eight nonexistent cases, including one supposedly decided by the Eleventh Circuit itself. After opposing counsel flagged them, Sabatini filed an untimely reply withdrawing eight cases, and none matched the original eight, and all eight replacements were also fabricated. Judge Britt Grant wrote that 'whatever the merits of artificial intelligence, it is no substitute for actual intelligence' and referred Sabatini to the court's Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
A judge struck a Roc Nation filing over AI-fabricated quotes, Tyrone Blackburn's third AI sanction
On July 10, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis struck a brief filed by attorney Tyrone Blackburn in his client Terrance Dixon's employment-misconduct case against Roc Nation after finding quotations that did not appear in the cases cited, calling his conduct 'an outrageous breach of his ethical and professional obligations' and a 'continued pattern of behavior.' Blackburn had already been sanctioned $5,000 in Pennsylvania federal court and $6,000 in New Jersey federal court for AI-hallucinated citations, and separately referred to SDNY's Grievance Committee over deposition conduct. He responded that his cited decisions were real but paraphrased; Willis wrote that his explanation 'brazenly minimizes' the conduct. The tracking database courts now cite counted 1,667 U.S. AI-fabrication cases by mid-2026, up from about 230 a year earlier.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
A Pennsylvania federal court suspended an attorney six months for AI-hallucinated citations
In June 2026, U.S. District Chief Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania sanctioned attorney Nicholas W. Mattiacci Sr. for filing briefs with AI-generated hallucinated citations, ordering a $1,500 penalty and suspending him from practice in the district for six months beginning June 22. The judge rejected the attorney's attempt to blame research tools and label the errors inadvertent, and noted it was not his first disregard for the court's rules.
- Confidence
- Low (single source)
Law Society of Ontario lawyer fined 31,150 CAD for Grok hallucinations
A lawyer was ordered to pay 31,150 CAD in adverse costs after using Grok to file fabricated legal authorities in a Canadian tribunal case. The incident demonstrates the risks of relying on AI for legal research without manual verification.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
A Texas federal judge sanctioned an attorney for AI-fabricated citations in a TCPA case
In McCormick v. Texakoma Financial, Inc., decided June 11, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sanctioned attorney Amy L.B. Ginsburg after her summary-judgment response cited a nonexistent case, fabricated quotations, and misstated legal principles that appeared to come from generative AI. Judge Amos Mazzant struck the response, imposed a $5,000 penalty jointly on Ginsburg and her firm, ordered CLE and a review of her 2026 filings, and required a verification certification on future filings citing authority.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Harbor Distributing lawyer sanctioned for AI fabricated case law
A lawyer for Harbor Distributing, LLC used AI to generate legal citations and quotes that were found to be fabricated. The court imposed a $6,000 sanction and referred the lawyer to the state bar.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Bowers files fabricated case law in Arizona court
A Pro Se litigant in Arizona submitted court filings containing fabricated case law generated by AI. The incident was documented in a database of AI legal hallucinations.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Iowa appeal dismissed after pro se litigant filed fabricated case law, AI suspected
Pro se litigant Mynesia A. Anderson submitted legal filings in an Iowa child support appeal containing fabricated case law and false quotes. The court identified the hallucinations and subsequently dismissed the appeal.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Henry County Schools v. Grant case involves AI fabricated case law
A lawyer and judge in the Georgia case Henry County Schools et al. v. Grant et al. submitted fabricated and misrepresented case law. The incident occurred on June 10, 2026, and resulted in the vacation of the trial court's order.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
LiveVideo.AI Corp lawyer sanctioned for fabricated case law in SDNY
In the case of LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone, a lawyer submitted filings containing hallucinated case law. The S.D.N.Y. court imposed an adverse costs order of $80,056 and referred the attorney to the bar.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Westendorf AI hallucination in BCCRT legal filing
A Pro Se litigant in the case Wong v. Westendorf used generative AI to draft legal arguments, resulting in the citation of a non-existent act. The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal identified the hallucination on June 8, 2026.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
The Ninth Circuit sanctioned two attorneys for AI-fabricated citations in immigration briefs
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sanctioned attorneys Mike Sethi and William Rounds for filing immigration briefs that cited nonexistent cases generated by AI and for subsequently misrepresenting the source of those errors. The court imposed a $2,500 fine on each attorney, a six-month suspension from practice before the Ninth Circuit, and a two-year requirement to disclose any AI use in future filings. This was the Ninth Circuit's first published ruling addressing lawyer responsibility for AI errors.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Lawyer Mike Singh Sethi sanctioned in 9th Circuit for AI fabricated case law
Lawyer Mike Singh Sethi was sanctioned by the 9th Circuit for submitting AI-generated fabricated case law in the Lnu v. Blanche case. The sanctions included a $5,000 fine and a six-month suspension of his law license.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Reaves Law Firm sanctioned for filing AI generated fabricated case law
A federal court in Tennessee sanctioned Reaves Law Firm, PLLC after the firm submitted filings containing hallucinated legal citations. The court issued a Rule 11 sanction, including a bar referral and an adverse costs order.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Todd Blanche sanctioned by Seventh Circuit for AI hallucinations in legal brief
Lawyer Todd Blanche was sanctioned $5,000 by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after filing a brief containing fabricated case law and false record representations generated by ChatGPT. The court also referred the matter to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
California judge relied on fictitious AI case law in H.C. v. Contreras
A California judge's ruling was reversed after the court relied on a fictitious case citation produced by generative AI. The trial court had ignored warnings from opposing counsel regarding the nonexistent authority.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Brazil labor court AI detects hidden prompt injection in legal petition
The AI tool Galileu, used by Brazil's labor courts, identified a hidden prompt injection in a legal petition designed to manipulate the AI's analysis. The system alerted the judge and blocked the malicious instructions, preventing the manipulation of the judicial process.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
W. Perry Hall fined $17,200 for AI hallucinations in Alabama Supreme Court briefs
The Alabama Supreme Court fined attorney W. Perry Hall $17,200 and referred him to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline after his briefs contained AI-generated citations. The court also barred further filings without a co-signer. The underlying dispute involved a fiduciary-family matter.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Sullivan & Cromwell apologized for filing about three dozen AI-hallucinated citations
Sullivan & Cromwell submitted a motion in the bankruptcy case In re Prince Global Holdings Limited containing fabricated case citations and inaccurate passages generated by artificial intelligence. Partner Andrew Dietderich filed an apology letter on April 18, 2026, listing approximately three dozen errors across a three-page attachment, including both AI hallucinations and clerical mistakes. The firm acknowledged it failed to follow internal AI review protocols and stated it was evaluating enhancements to its training and review processes.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Pro Se litigant sanctioned $5,000 for AI hallucinated case law in Illinois court
A Pro Se litigant in the Northern District of Illinois utilized AI to generate legal filings that contained numerous fabricated cases and quotes. The court found the submissions to be riddled with hallucinations and imposed a $5,000 sanction for violating Rule 11.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
A lawyer cited an AI-fabricated High Court authority before the NSW Court of Appeal
In Edmonds v Barrington Winstanley Group (No 3) [2026] NSWCA 31, a lawyer filed written submissions that cited a non-existent High Court authority and alleged the uploading of a non-existent mortgage (AU379627) among other documentary irregularities. The court identified the fabricated citation and noted it did not correspond to any real case. The AI tool was implied but not specifically confirmed by the court.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Sixth Circuit sanctions two Tennessee lawyers for fake AI citations in Whiting v. City of Athens
The Sixth Circuit sanctioned two Tennessee attorneys for using AI to generate fake citations in Whiting v. City of Athens, imposing $15,000 punitive fines per attorney and ordering cost reimbursement to the City. The sanctions were reported by multiple independent outlets and linked to a March 13, 2026 decision.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
An Australian court referred solicitors to a commissioner over AI submissions citing fake cases
In Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found that a junior solicitor used a Google search combined with an AI summary to produce legal research containing three fabricated case citations, which were filed with the court without verification. The principal solicitor failed to independently check the authorities before they were submitted. Both solicitors were referred to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner (SA) and personally paid $3,125 in costs.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
A Georgia judge sanctioned attorney Tristan Gillespie $25,000 over AI-hallucinated cases
A Georgia judge imposed a $25,000 financial sanction on plaintiff's attorney Tristan S. Gillespie after finding his court filings contained multiple case citations fabricated by ChatGPT. Defense attorney Luke Kennedy of McMickle, Kurey & Branch moved for sanctions after discovering at least eight faulty citations across four filings, including non-existent cases such as Kaplan v. Banks and Cox v. Webb. The court characterized the sanction as warranted under Rule 11 and its inherent authority, emphasizing that filing unverified AI-generated legal authority constitutes sanctionable misconduct.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Tenerife lawyer fined for submitting 48 AI-generated fake legal citations
The Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) imposed a €420 fine on an unnamed Tenerife lawyer after finding that an appeal contained up to 48 fabricated judicial citations generated by a general-purpose AI tool. The court found the lawyer did not verify the citations against official jurisprudence databases and forwarded the matter to the lawyer's Bar Association for potential disciplinary action.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
IP Wealth cited fabricated AI-generated case law before the Australian Trade Marks Office
In Leytcorp Pty Ltd v Mimbim Enterprises Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 264, IP Wealth submitted materials referencing non-existent cases and propositions of law attributed to AI hallucinations. Delegate Benjamin Goldsworthy identified the fabricated authorities and described the conduct as unfortunate but declined to impose sanctions beyond standard costs. The decision was issued on 22 December 2025 by the Australian Trade Marks Office.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
French court flags AI hallucinated precedents in legal ruling
The Tribunal judiciaire de Périgueux identified non-existent legal precedents submitted by a claimant. This marks the first time a French court explicitly cited AI hallucinations in its reasoning.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Oregon attorneys fined $110,000 for AI-generated fake case law
A federal judge in Oregon dismissed a vineyard inheritance lawsuit and imposed $110,000 in sanctions against two attorneys for submitting AI-generated briefs containing fabricated citations, with the case dismissed with prejudice.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
An Australian Family Court solicitor was ordered to pay $10,000 AUD over AI-fabricated citations
In Mertz & Mertz (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 222, a solicitor used an unidentified AI program via her paralegal to draft a Summary of Argument and List of Authorities filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, producing fictitious case law citations. The solicitor was ordered by consent to pay 10,000 AUD in costs thrown away correcting the errors, and the court referred the practitioners to the South Australian Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner. The Full Court rejected the solicitor's claim that she was unaware the paralegal had used AI, holding that practitioners remain accountable for accuracy regardless of delegation.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Victoria's Supreme Court reprimanded lawyer Seham Rizkallah over AI-fabricated citations
In Re Walker [2025] VSC 714, solicitor Seham Rizkallah of Rizkallah Partners used CourtAid and ChatGPT to prepare opening submissions in a contested probate matter, resulting in four legal authorities being filed that either did not exist or were misrepresented. Justice Steven Moore found her conduct constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct and imposed a formal reprimand, declining to refer the matter to the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)