AI Failure Index
AI Failures in Legal Services
Legal AI failures are documented inside court filings. The receipts are the docket.
- Incidents
- 66
- Highest severity
- Catastrophic
- Sources cited
- 169
- Newest indexed
- Jun 16, 2026
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)
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)
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)
Sanctions in Dubinin v. Papazian for AI-generated fabrications in court filings
Two independent sources confirm that in Dubinin v. Papazian, AI-generated inaccuracies including nonexistent authorities and false quotations led to sanctions; the case was dismissed without prejudice and fees were ordered. The reporting outlets are independent and include a court filing that corroborates the sanctions.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
An attorney in Dubinin v. Papazian filed a brief with ten AI-fabricated citations, ending the case
In Dubinin v. Papazian, plaintiff's counsel Missiva Tilleli Khacer filed a response brief containing at least ten fabricated case citations and quotations attributed to nonexistent Eleventh Circuit opinions. The drafting had been delegated to New York attorney Nataliya Gavlin, whose legal assistant used generative AI to produce the brief. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the case without prejudice, ordered Khacer to pay $4,030.90 in defendant's attorneys' fees, and referred all counsel to the Florida Bar and the court's Grievance Committee.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Attorney Loletha Hale was sanctioned for a brief with 17 AI-hallucinated case citations
In Boston et al. v. Williams et al. (N.D. Ga.), attorney Loletha Hale filed an opposition brief citing 24 cases, 17 of which were fabricated or inaccurate AI hallucinations that she failed to verify before filing. When confronted, Hale claimed she had her non-attorney daughter draft the brief, but the court found her explanation not credible and sanctioned her under Rule 11 on October 28, 2025. She was ordered to notify all existing clients of the court's findings and file the sanction order in all pending and future cases in the district for five years.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Amir Mostafavi fined $10,000 for using ChatGPT to fabricate court quotes
California attorney Amir Mostafavi was sanctioned $10,000 by the 2nd District Court of Appeal for submitting a brief containing fabricated quotes. The court found that 21 of 23 quotations were hallucinated by ChatGPT.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
An Am Law 100 firm submitted fake AI citations in two consecutive cases
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani apologized for submitting AI-hallucinated citations. A subsequent filing in another case was alleged to contain more fabricated authority.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
A California appeals court imposed a $10,000 sanction for fabricated AI citations in briefs
A California Court of Appeal found that nearly all of the legal quotations in an appellant's opening brief were fabricated by generative AI, attributed to cases that did not contain them or did not exist. The court imposed a $10,000 sanction and published the opinion as a warning to the bar.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
AI hallucinatory citations lead to sanctions in Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics
Public reporting confirms that in Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, Eastern District of California, attorney Sepideh Ardestani faced sanctions (including a $1,500 penalty) and a State Bar referral due to AI-generated, non-existent, misquoted, or unsupported citations in a motion for reconsideration. The events are documented by independent outlets, with a court order date of September 9, 2025. The case highlights the regulatory and professional discipline implications of AI-assisted miscitations in legal filings.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Attorney Sepideh Ardestani was sanctioned $1,500 over AI-hallucinated citations in a filing
Plaintiff's attorney Sepideh Ardestani filed a motion for reconsideration in Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics containing two nonexistent case citations, ten fabricated quotations, and twelve misattributed legal propositions. When confronted, Ardestani denied using AI and provided inconsistent explanations that the court found not credible. U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins imposed a $1,500 sanction and directed the clerk to refer the matter to the State Bar of California.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Attorney Innocent Chinweze was sanctioned $1,000 after Copilot fabricated seven cases in a filing
Attorney Innocent O. Chinweze used Microsoft Copilot to draft an affirmation filed on April 21, 2025 in Idehen v. Stoute-Phillip that cited seven nonexistent cases. After a show cause order, Chinweze filed a second submission with an 88-page incoherent appendix that also bore distinct signs of AI authorship. On July 29, 2025, the court imposed a $1,000 sanction and referred Chinweze to the grievance committee, finding his conduct constituted egregious misconduct implicating his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness to practice law.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
A federal judge disqualified attorneys at a major firm over AI-hallucinated citations
In Johnson v. Dunn, a federal judge in Alabama found a large law firm had filed a motion containing hallucinated AI citations and concluded that monetary sanctions were no longer an effective deterrent. The court disqualified the responsible attorneys from the case and referred them to bar regulators.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Butler Snow LLP AI hallucination leads to disqualification in Johnson v. Dunn (N.D. Alabama)
Public reporting confirms that Butler Snow LLP faced sanctions for AI-generated hallucinated citations in Johnson v. Dunn, with the court disqualifying the firm’s attorneys and referring the matter for disciplinary action; multiple sources corroborate the event and its legal implications.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Judge Henry Wingate's staff used AI to draft TRO with hallucinated quotes
A law clerk for Judge Henry Wingate used generative AI to draft a TRO containing fabricated quotes and inaccuracies; the order was rescinded after errors were exposed, and the incident prompted a Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Judge Julien Xavier Neals withdraws CorMedix opinion after AI hallucinations
US District Judge Julien Xavier Neals withdrew a CorMedix opinion after discovering AI-generated errors, including fictitious quotes and misstatements, with withdrawal attributed to a law student intern using ChatGPT and inadequate human review.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
The UK High Court warned all lawyers to stop misusing AI after five hallucinated citations
In Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey, a pupil barrister at Haringey Law Centre cited five non-existent legal authorities in court filings, suspected to have been generated by AI tools without verification. Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King's Bench Division, issued a profession-wide warning that lawyers misusing AI could face contempt of court or criminal charges for perverting the course of justice. The ruling also addressed a companion case, Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank, where 18 of 45 cited authorities were fictitious.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
UK High Court warns lawyers against AI misuse after fake citations
The UK High Court warned lawyers to stop the misuse of AI after fake case-law citations appeared in court filings, with Dame Victoria Sharp flagging potential sanctions.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Richard Bednar sanctioned by Utah appeals court for fake ChatGPT citations
Lawyer Richard Bednar was sanctioned by the Utah Court of Appeals for filing a petition containing fabricated legal citations generated by ChatGPT. The court found that the attorney failed his professional duty to verify the accuracy of the AI-generated content.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Maren Bam sanctioned for AI-generated hallucinations in federal case
Attorney Bam submitted a brief containing AI-hallucinated citations; a federal judge sanctioned Bam, striking the Opening Brief and revoking her pro hac vice status.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates LLP sanctioned $31,100 for AI hallucinations
Attorneys from Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates LLP were jointly sanctioned $31,100 for submitting AI-generated citations in Lacey v. State Farm General Ins. Co., with some citations found to be nonexistent and others erroneous. The sanctioning decision was described as a collective debacle by a special master.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Jisuh Lee referred for criminal contempt over AI-generated fake citations in Ontario court
Ontario lawyer Jisuh Lee submitted a factum with hallucinated or misattributed citations generated by ChatGPT. After initially denying AI involvement, she admitted using AI, and a court referral to the Attorney General followed for potential contempt.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
MyPillow lawyers were sanctioned for a brief with nearly 30 AI-fabricated citations
In the Coomer v. Lindell defamation case, a federal judge in Colorado found nearly thirty defective citations in a brief filed by Mike Lindell's attorneys: cases that did not exist, misquoted authorities, and decisions attributed to the wrong court. Counsel admitted using generative AI and were sanctioned.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Dehghani v. Castro attorneys sanctioned for AI hallucinations
A filing attorney and a freelance attorney in the case of Dehghani v. Castro were sanctioned by a New Mexico federal court for submitting a brief containing AI-generated hallucinations. The court imposed fines, mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) training, and a requirement to self-report the misconduct to their respective state bars.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Attorney Felipe D.J. Millan was fined $1,500 over a brief with 19 AI-fabricated case citations
In Dehghani v. Castro, petitioner's counsel Felipe D.J. Millan purchased a brief from freelance attorney Janelle M. Lewis through the LAWCLERK marketplace for $750. Lewis likely used generative AI to draft the brief, which contained six fabricated case citations and thirteen additional mis-cited cases, then destroyed all work product per LAWCLERK policy. Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez sanctioned Millan with a $1,500 fine, mandatory one-hour CLE training on legal ethics or AI in writing, and orders to self-report to the New Mexico and Texas state bars and to report Lewis to the New York bar.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Google AI breaches New Zealand court name suppression orders
Google's AI search functions, including AI Overviews, revealed the identities of individuals protected by court-ordered name suppressions in New Zealand. The AI surfaced this information despite legal mandates intended to keep the identities confidential.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
A lawyer faced a $15,000 sanction for AI-fabricated citations across three briefs
In an Indiana ERISA case, a federal magistrate judge recommended a $15,000 sanction against a solo practitioner who filed three briefs containing fake citations generated by AI, including a case that did not exist. The lawyer admitted he relied on generative AI and did not verify the cases.
- Confidence
- Low (single source)
Indiana lawyer faces recommended $15,000 fine for fake AI citations
Attorney Rafael Ramirez was recommended for a $15,000 sanction by a federal magistrate judge in Indiana for submitting briefs with fake AI-generated citations. The lawyer admitted to relying on generative AI without verifying the sources.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Morgan & Morgan lawyers sanctioned for AI-generated fake citations in Wyoming case
Morgan & Morgan attorneys were sanctioned in the District of Wyoming for filing a motion containing eight fabricated case citations generated by an internal AI platform. The court fined three attorneys a total of $5,000 and removed Rudwin Ayala from the case.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Thomas Grant Neusom suspended for two years over AI hallucinated citations
Florida Supreme Court suspended attorney Thomas Grant Neusom for two years due to professional misconduct, with evidence including AI-generated, hallucinated citations in pleadings.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
A misinformation expert's own court filing contained AI-hallucinated citations
In a Minnesota case about deepfakes and elections, a Stanford misinformation expert submitted a declaration supporting the state that itself contained citations to studies that did not exist, generated by AI. The court declined to consider the declaration after the fake references came to light.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Attorney Rafael Ramirez sanctioned for AI hallucinations in HoosierVac case
Attorney Rafael Ramirez was sanctioned $6,000 after filing three briefs containing non-existent citations generated by AI, with the court later reducing the originally recommended $15,000 sanction and referring Ramirez for disciplinary action.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
The FTC fined the 'robot lawyer' DoNotPay for unsubstantiated AI claims
The FTC charged DoNotPay, which marketed an AI 'robot lawyer' that could replace human attorneys, with making unsubstantiated claims. The company agreed to a settlement, including a penalty and a requirement to warn consumers about the service's limits.
- Confidence
- Medium (single primary source)
Lovo sued by voice actors for unauthorized voice cloning
Voice actors filed a class-action lawsuit against AI startup Lovo, Inc., alleging the company cloned their voices without consent. The plaintiffs claim their likenesses were misappropriated to create synthetic voice products.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
A Massachusetts court sanctioned counsel $2,000 over three filings with AI-fabricated citations
In Smith v. Farwell (Civil Action No. 2282CV01197), the Suffolk Superior Court of Massachusetts ordered plaintiff counsel to pay a $2,000 sanction after three opposition pleadings contained fictitious case citations generated by an AI system. An associate attorney and two recent law graduates used an unidentified AI to draft the filings, and the supervising attorney reviewed them only for style and grammar without verifying the citations. Justice Brian A. Davis found a knowing failure to review under Mass. R. Civ. P. 11 and imposed the sanction on February 12, 2024.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Massachusetts attorney sanctioned for citing AI generated fictitious cases
In a Massachusetts Superior Court case, a lawyer faced sanctions for submitting pleadings containing fictitious AI-generated citations; the ruling underscored the duty to verify AI-generated content before filing.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Felicity Harber submitted nine fictitious AI-generated case citations to a UK tribunal
Felicity Harber, a litigant in person appealing an HMRC penalty for failure to notify Capital Gains Tax liability, submitted nine fabricated First-tier Tribunal case citations generated by an AI system such as ChatGPT. The Tribunal found that none of the cited cases existed on any legal database, though they bore superficial similarities to real cases. The Tribunal accepted Harber was unaware the cases were fabricated but dismissed her appeal and warned that citing invented judgments wastes public money and undermines confidence in the judicial system.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Amazon Q chatbot allegedly leaks confidential AWS data and hallucinations
Amazon's AI chatbot, Q, allegedly suffered from severe hallucinations and leaked confidential company data, including data center locations. While internal documents flagged the issue as a significant incident, Amazon spokespeople denied that any confidential information was leaked.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Zachariah Crabill suspended for AI-generated hallucinated case law
Attorney Zachariah Crabill was sanctioned by the Colorado bar for submitting a court filing with fake case law generated by ChatGPT. This resulted in a 90-day disciplinary suspension.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
California attorney fined $10,000 for filing appeal with fake AI citations
The California appeals court fined Amir Mostafavi $10,000 after discovering 21 of 23 quotes in the opening brief were fabricated by ChatGPT. The ruling serves as a warning to lawyers about the dangers of submitting unverified AI content.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
S.D.N.Y. sanctions attorneys for using fake ChatGPT citations
Attorneys in the Mata v. Avianca case submitted legal briefs containing non-existent case citations generated by ChatGPT. The court issued a $5,000 sanction against the lawyers for their failure to verify the AI-generated content.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Levidow, Levidow and Oberman sanctioned for ChatGPT fabricated citations
Attorneys Schwartz and LoDuca of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman used ChatGPT to generate legal research, which produced six fake judicial opinions. The court sanctioned the firm and the attorneys with a $5,000 fine after the fabricated citations were discovered.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
ChatGPT invented an embezzlement claim, prompting a first-of-its-kind libel suit
Radio host Mark Walters sued OpenAI for libel after ChatGPT, asked to summarize a real lawsuit, fabricated a claim that Walters had embezzled from a nonprofit. He had no connection to the case. It was among the first defamation suits over an AI hallucination.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Lawyers cited six fake cases generated by ChatGPT in federal court
In Mata v. Avianca, two attorneys filed a brief citing six judicial decisions that did not exist. ChatGPT had fabricated them. The court sanctioned the lawyers and the case became the inflection point for legal AI policy.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)