Claude resources · Database
AI Hallucination Case Law Database
What courts have done when AI invented the law. A searchable record of decisions on fabricated citations, with the sanction and the source for each.
Checked September 17, 2026
Since 2023, courts have repeatedly dealt with filings that cite cases that do not exist, quote language no court wrote, or misstate what real authority holds, because someone relied on a generative AI tool and did not check its work. This database collects decisions we have confirmed against the court’s own order or reputable reporting. It records who filed the material, what went wrong, and what the court did about it.
It is a selection, not a census. The most comprehensive public tracker we know of is Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases database, which inspired this one. Ours is compiled independently and is limited to entries we verified ourselves.
78 of 78 decisions
CaseCourtDateWho filedWhat went wrongWhat the court did
Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. ↗No. 24-CV-1099 · Source: court opinion or orderD.C.2026-09-03LawyerA bank's appellate brief cited four cases that do not exist, found through Google's AI search tool and not verified.Court struck the entire brief as a sanction and referred the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
LPC Commercial Services, LLC v. Ar-Razzaaq Properties, LLC ↗Record No. 1407-25-4 · Source: court opinion or orderVa. Ct. App.2026-08-25LawyerThe appellee's brief attributed twenty-five quotations to Virginia cases that do not contain them.Published opinion requires counsel to complete continuing legal education on AI or appellate practice within six months; no monetary sanction.
Doe v. University of North Carolina System ↗No. 1:23-cv-00041 · Source: court opinion or orderW.D.N.C.2026-06-16LawyerPlaintiff's filings cited two nonexistent cases and invented quotations despite signed certifications that every citation had been checked.Show cause order discharged after counsel published a state bar journal article on the errors, which the court criticized as minimizing.
Payne v. State ↗No. S26A0459 · Source: court opinion or orderGa.2026-05-05LawyerThe State's briefs opposing a new trial, and the trial court order that followed, cited nonexistent and misattributed cases.Order vacated and remanded; the prosecutor was barred from the court for six months and must complete extra legal education.
Fivehouse v. U.S. Department of Defense ↗No. 2:25-cv-00041 · Source: court opinion or orderE.D.N.C.2026-04-27LawyerA government brief contained fabricated quotations and misstated holdings from Fourth Circuit cases, which a self-represented plaintiff uncovered.Public reprimand of the former federal prosecutor, limited because the position had already been lost; opinion ordered published.
Gamez v. County of Fresno ↗Source: news reportE.D. Cal.2026-04-09LawyerA filing contained nonexistent citations and fabricated quotations produced by a paid legal AI research tool.Show cause order discharged with no sanctions.
United States v. Farris ↗171 F.4th 920 · Source: news report6th Cir.2026-04LawyerTwo appellate briefs drafted by staff with CoCounsel contained fabricated quotations and misstated holdings that appointed counsel never verified.Counsel removed from the appeal, denied all appointed-counsel compensation, and referred for possible discipline.
Dec v. Mullin ↗No. 25-2417 · Source: court opinion or order7th Cir.2026-03-30LawyerAn immigration brief's standard of review section cited two nonexistent cases and a false quotation, seemingly AI-generated.Counsel admonished; no further sanction because the errors were unintentional and supported an undisputed legal standard.
McCarthy v. Drug Enforcement Administration ↗No. 24-2704 · Source: court opinion or order3d Cir.2026-03-27LawyerA brief included eight summaries of agency decisions supplied by the client; seven were inaccurate and one described a decision that does not exist.Reprimand in a precedential opinion; the court withheld a fine because it had not addressed AI misuse before.
Prososki v. Regan ↗321 Neb. 38; No. S-25-295 · Source: court opinion or orderNeb.2026-03-20LawyerFifty-seven of sixty-three citations in a divorce appeal brief were defective, including fictitious cases and invented statutory quotations.Court referred counsel for discipline; in April 2026 it suspended the lawyer from practice until further order.
Whiting v. City of Athens ↗170 F.4th 455 · Source: news report6th Cir.2026-03-13LawyerAppellate briefs contained more than two dozen fake citations and misrepresentations of the record.Two lawyers ordered to pay the other side's fees, double costs, and $15,000 each, with a disciplinary referral.
Suiter v. General Motors LLC ↗No. 5:24-cv-00054 · Source: court opinion or orderW.D. Va.2026-03-12Self-represented litigantA self-represented plaintiff's briefs mischaracterized most cited cases and included quotations that do not appear in them.Warning only: future fabricated authorities may bring a show cause order, stricken filings, fines, or dismissal.
In re Nwaubani ↗2026 WL 687194; No. 25-9517 · Source: news report4th Cir.2026-03-11LawyerBriefs in an employment discrimination appeal cited three judicial opinions that do not exist.Public admonishment by the court's attorney discipline panel; the court said fake citations are barred however they arise.
Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ↗168 F.4th 231; No. 25-20086 · Source: court opinion or order5th Cir.2026-02-18LawyerAn appellate reply brief contained sixteen fabricated quotations and several misstatements, and counsel was not forthcoming about using AI.$2,500 sanction payable to the clerk; the court said more candor would likely have meant a lesser penalty.
Flycatcher Corp. Ltd. v. Affable Avenue LLC ↗No. 1:24-cv-09429 · Source: court opinion or orderS.D.N.Y.2026-02-05LawyerCounsel repeatedly filed submissions with false citations, including at least thirteen nonexistent cases and eight misattributed quotations.Court struck the client's submissions and entered default judgment against it under Rule 11 and its inherent powers.
Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc. ↗No. 2:22-cv-02324 · Source: court opinion or orderD. Kan.2026-02-02LawyerTwo briefs in a patent case contained nonexistent cases, invented quotations, and misstatements of authority traced to one lawyer's unverified ChatGPT research.Five lawyers admonished; fines of $5,000, $3,000, $3,000 and $1,000; one pro hac vice admission revoked with self-reporting to bar authorities.
Wilcox v. Gingrich ↗No. 25A-PL-1157 · Source: court opinion or orderInd. Ct. App.2026-01-30Self-represented litigantTwo self-represented appellants' brief cited fourteen fabricated cases and mischaracterized real ones.Court called out the nonexistent authorities but declined to impose sanctions.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. LeTennier ↗2026 NY Slip Op 00040; No. CV-23-0713 · Source: court opinion or orderN.Y. App. Div. (3d Dept.)2026-01-08LawyerAppellate filings in a foreclosure case included at least twenty-three fabricated cases plus misstatements about real ones.$7,500 in sanctions against defense counsel and $2,500 against the defendant under the state frivolous conduct rule.
Simpson v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC ↗No. 5:24-cv-00094 · Source: court opinion or orderW.D. Va.2025-12-19Self-represented litigantA self-represented plaintiff's summary judgment motion contained mischaracterized case citations and fabricated quotations.Warning only: further fabricated authorities may lead to a show cause order and Rule 11 sanctions.
Couvrette v. Wisnovsky ↗No. 1:21-cv-00157 · Source: court opinion or orderD. Or.2025-12-12LawyerThree summary judgment briefs contained fifteen nonexistent cases and eight fabricated quotations, and the amended briefs did not fix them.Briefs struck, plaintiffs' claims dismissed with prejudice, a $15,500 fine on one lawyer, and defense fees awarded.
Boger v. City of Harrisonburg ↗No. 5:24-cv-00083 · Source: court opinion or orderW.D. Va.2025-12-09Self-represented litigantA self-represented plaintiff's filings contained mischaracterized and occasionally fabricated case citations.Warning only: future fabricated or misrepresented authorities may lead to a show cause order under Rule 11.
Neal v. Frayer ↗No. 8:24-cv-00778 · Source: court opinion or orderD. Md.2025-11-17LawyerA summary judgment opposition cited nonexistent cases that the court concluded were likely AI hallucinations.No sanctions because counsel apologized and adopted new review protocols; court warned that repeat errors may bring Rule 11 sanctions.
In re Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc. ↗No. 25-30256 · Source: news reportBankr. M.D. Ala.2025-11LawyerA creditor's filings contained fabricated AI-generated citations, and counsel at first denied that AI had been used.Lawyer publicly reprimanded and ordered to circulate the opinion; the former firm, which repaid over $55,000 in fees, was not sanctioned.
Mezu v. Mezu ↗No. 361, Sept. Term 2025 · Source: court opinion or orderApp. Ct. Md.2025-10-29LawyerAn appellate brief in a family case cited multiple fictitious cases and misquoted others after a law clerk used ChatGPT for research.Counsel referred to the Attorney Grievance Commission in the state's first published appellate opinion on the issue.
Mattox v. Product Innovations Research, LLC ↗Source: news reportE.D. Okla.2025-10-22LawyerEleven filings contained fabricated cases, erroneous citations, quotations of nonexistent law, and misstatements of law.About $6,000 in punitive sanctions on the lawyers plus more than $23,000 in the other side's attorney fees.
People v. Alvarez ↗No. D084581 · Source: court opinion or orderCal. Ct. App. (4th Dist.)2025-10-03LawyerA filing in a criminal matter included a fabricated quotation from a real case and a citation to a case that does not exist.$1,500 sanction payable to the court after counsel admitted failing to verify cases supplied by AI.
Ader v. Ader ↗Index No. 653917/2024 · Source: court opinion or orderN.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County2025-10-01LawyerA summary judgment opposition contained AI-generated fake citations and quotations, and the brief opposing sanctions contained still more.Defendants and counsel held jointly liable for the plaintiff's related fees and costs; decision sent to grievance authorities in two states.
Puerto Rico Soccer League NFP Corp. v. Federacion Puertorriquena de Futbol ↗No. 3:23-cv-01203 · Source: news reportD.P.R.2025-09-23LawyerPlaintiffs' motions contained at least fifty-five defective citations, including cases that do not exist.Plaintiffs' lawyers ordered to pay more than $24,000 of the defendants' attorney fees and research costs.
Mitchel v. Stellantis Financial Services, Inc. ↗No. 3:24-cv-882 · Source: court opinion or orderE.D. Va.2025-09-18Self-represented litigantMany of the legal citations in a self-represented plaintiff's complaint were inaccurate or fabricated, suggesting AI drafting.No sanction; the court suggested an exception to liberal construction may be needed for AI-drafted pleadings.
Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. ↗114 Cal. App. 5th 426; No. B331918 · Source: court opinion or orderCal. Ct. App. (2d Dist.)2025-09-12LawyerTwenty-one of twenty-three case quotations in the appellant's briefs were fabricated by generative AI tools.$10,000 sanction payable to the court, a copy of the opinion to the client, and notice to the State Bar.
Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration ↗No. 2:25-cv-00689 · Source: court opinion or orderD. Ariz.2025-08-14LawyerTwelve of nineteen cases cited in a Social Security opening brief were fabricated, misleading, or unsupported.Brief struck and pro hac vice status revoked; in January 2026 the district judge vacated the Rule 11 finding and the other sanctions.
MS v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) ↗[2025] UKUT 305 (IAC) · Source: court opinion or orderUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)2025-08-12LawyerGrounds of appeal cited a Court of Appeal case that does not exist, and counsel then relied on ChatGPT to defend the citation.Barrister referred to the Bar Standards Board; tribunal saw no basis for contempt proceedings.
Johnson v. Dunn ↗792 F. Supp. 3d 1241 · Source: court opinion or orderN.D. Ala.2025-07-23LawyerTwo motions in a prison litigation case included fabricated citations that a partner had generated with ChatGPT and nobody verified.Three lawyers publicly reprimanded, disqualified from the case, and referred to the Alabama State Bar; the court rejected a fine as insufficient.
In re Baby Boy ↗2025 IL App (4th) 241427 · Source: court opinion or orderIll. App. Ct. (4th Dist.)2025-07-21LawyerOpening and reply briefs in a parental rights appeal cited eight cases that do not exist, generated by AI and never verified.Appointed counsel ordered to return $6,925.62 in fees and pay a $1,000 fine; opinion sent to the state disciplinary commission.
In re Martin ↗670 B.R. 636 · Source: court opinion or orderBankr. N.D. Ill.2025-07-18LawyerA Chapter 13 brief contained fake quotations and citations to nonexistent authority produced by ChatGPT.$5,500 joint sanction on the lawyer and firm, plus mandatory attendance at a bankruptcy judges' session on AI.
ByoPlanet International, LLC v. Johansson ↗792 F. Supp. 3d 1341 · Source: court opinion or orderS.D. Fla.2025-07-17LawyerFilings across eight related matters contained hallucinated cases and quotations, continuing after the lawyer was put on notice.Four federal cases dismissed without prejudice, fees awarded to opponents, a two-year disclosure requirement, and referral to the Florida Bar.
Coomer v. Lindell ↗Source: news reportD. Colo.2025-07-07LawyerAn opposition brief contained nearly thirty defective citations, including misquotes and cases that do not exist.Two defense lawyers fined $3,000 each; one was fined a further $5,000 in May 2026 for a repeated miscitation.
Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v. State of Victoria ↗[2025] FCA 731 · Source: news reportFederal Court of Australia2025-07LawyerFootnotes in native title filings cited anthropological and historical documents that did not exist or were wrongly cited.Law firm ordered to pay the other parties' costs on an indemnity basis; no referral to the regulator.
Shahid v. Esaam ↗No. A25A0196 · Source: court opinion or orderGa. Ct. App.2025-06-30LawyerA trial court order relied on two fictitious cases, and the appellee's brief contained eleven bogus or misapplied citations out of fifteen.Order vacated and remanded for a new hearing; $2,500 frivolous motion penalty imposed on the appellee's lawyer.
R (Ayinde) v. London Borough of Haringey; Al-Haroun v. Qatar National Bank ↗[2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) · Source: court opinion or orderHigh Court (Divisional Court)2025-06-06LawyerIn two separate cases, lawyers put fake or inaccurate authorities before the court, some produced by generative AI tools.No contempt proceedings; lawyers referred to their regulators and the court issued a general warning to the profession.
Powhatan County School Board v. Skinger ↗2025 WL 1559593; No. 3:24-cv-874 · Source: court opinion or orderE.D. Va.2025-06-02Self-represented litigantA self-represented defendant's filings were filled with citations to legal authorities that do not exist, later counted at forty-two instances.Court struck the offending filings from the record and later allowed corrected versions to be refiled.
Hussein v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) ↗2025 FC 1060 · Source: news reportFederal Court2025-06LawyerImmigration submissions cited two nonexistent cases and misstated another after counsel used a specialist AI research tool without disclosure.Court criticized the undeclared AI use; a follow-up decision (2025 FC 1138) ordered $100 in costs against counsel personally.
Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC ↗No. 2:24-cv-00326 · Source: court opinion or orderS.D. Ind.2025-05-28LawyerBriefs filed on three separate occasions cited cases that do not exist, produced by generative AI tools and not checked.$6,000 sanction, reduced from the $15,000 a magistrate judge recommended, and referral to the chief judge for possible discipline.
Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC ↗Source: news reportN.D. Cal.2025-05-23Expert witnessA footnote in an expert declaration gave a wrong title and wrong authors for a real article after counsel used Claude to format the citation.Magistrate judge struck the affected paragraph and said the error undermined the declaration's overall credibility.
Garner v. Kadince, Inc. ↗2025 UT App 80; No. 20250188-CA · Source: court opinion or orderUtah Ct. App.2025-05-22LawyerA petition for interlocutory appeal, drafted by an unlicensed law clerk with ChatGPT, cited at least one case that does not exist.Counsel ordered to pay the respondents' fees, refund the client, and donate $1,000 to a legal aid organization.
Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enterprises, LLC ↗No. 9:17-cv-81140 · Source: news reportS.D. Fla.2025-05-20LawyerA response filing cited a wholly fabricated Delaware decision on attorney-client privilege that counsel admitted came from AI.Two lawyers ordered to pay the other side's fees and complete AI ethics training, with fines of $1,000 and $500.
Ramirez v. Humala ↗Source: news reportE.D.N.Y.2025-05-13LawyerA letter to the court cited eight cases, four of which did not exist, drawn from a paralegal's AI-assisted research.$1,000 sanction on counsel and the firm, set low because of a prompt admission and apology.
Ko v. Li ↗2025 ONSC 2766 · Source: news reportOntario Superior Court of Justice2025-05-06LawyerA factum in an estates and family dispute cited cases that did not exist or whose links led to unrelated decisions.Lawyer ordered to show cause why contempt should not be found; counsel later apologized and withdrew the factum.
Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Co. ↗Source: news reportC.D. Cal. (Special Master)2025-05LawyerA supplemental brief built from an AI-generated outline had about nine defective citations out of twenty-seven, including two authorities that do not exist.Two law firms ordered to pay $31,100 jointly in special master fees and defense costs.
Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp. ↗No. 2:24-cv-7399 · Source: court opinion or orderE.D.N.Y.2025-04-24LawyerA reply brief cited five fabricated cases generated by the ChatOn app and was filed without review.$1,000 fine, service of the decision on the client, and AI training; no disciplinary referral given counsel's candor.
Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. ↗No. 2:25-cv-00576 · Source: court opinion or orderE.D. Pa.2025-04-10LawyerBriefs cited cases that did not exist or did not support the stated propositions, in breach of the judge's AI verification order.Court struck the lawyer's appearance, notified state and federal bar regulators, and ordered counsel to inform the client.
Dehghani v. Castro ↗No. 2:25-cv-00052 · Source: court opinion or orderD.N.M.2025-04-02LawyerA brief purchased from a freelance lawyer and filed unread contained fictitious cases and citations that did not support the points made.$1,500 fine, one hour of continuing legal education, and an order to self-report to two state bars.
Sanders v. United States ↗176 Fed. Cl. 163; No. 24-cv-1301 · Source: news reportFed. Cl.2025-03-31Self-represented litigantA self-represented plaintiff's filings cited cases that do not exist, which the court linked to AI drafting tools.No sanction; the court warned that future filings citing fictitious opinions could be struck or draw monetary penalties.
Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. ↗774 F. Supp. 3d 767; No. 1:22-cv-00024 · Source: court opinion or orderW.D. Va.2025-03-25Self-represented litigantA self-represented plaintiff's discovery reply cited fictitious cases and mischaracterized holdings after research on free generative AI platforms.Court found negligence but no bad faith and declined to impose monetary sanctions.
Nguyen v. Savage Enterprises ↗No. 4:24-cv-00815 · Source: court opinion or orderE.D. Ark.2025-03-03LawyerA response to a motion to dismiss cited nonexistent authority; counsel said AI may have contributed to the errors.$1,000 paid into the court registry as a Rule 11 sanction.
Bunce v. Visual Technology Innovations, Inc. ↗No. 2:23-cv-01740 · Source: court opinion or orderE.D. Pa.2025-02-27LawyerDefense motions written with ChatGPT contained citations to cases that do not exist and were filed without verification.$2,500 penalty and a one-hour continuing legal education program on AI and legal ethics.
Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc. ↗348 F.R.D. 489; No. 2:23-cv-118 · Source: news reportD. Wyo.2025-02-24LawyerMotions in limine cited eight cases that do not exist, generated by the firm's in-house AI platform and never checked.Drafting lawyer fined $3,000 and lost pro hac vice admission; two other signing lawyers fined $1,000 each.
Valu v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) ↗[2025] FedCFamC2G 95 · Source: court opinion or orderFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia2025-01-31LawyerSubmissions in a migration review cited seventeen nonexistent court decisions and invented quotations from the tribunal's decision.Lawyer referred to the New South Wales Legal Services Commissioner.
United States v. Hayes ↗763 F. Supp. 3d 1054; No. 2:24-cr-0280 · Source: court opinion or orderE.D. Cal.2025-01-17LawyerA defense motion cited a fictitious case and quotation that the court said bore the markings of an AI hallucination; counsel then gave misleading explanations.$1,500 personal sanction, with the order sent to two state bars and to every judge in the district.
Kohls v. Ellison ↗2025 WL 66514; No. 24-cv-3754 · Source: court opinion or orderD. Minn.2025-01-10Expert witnessAn expert declaration on AI misinformation cited two academic articles that do not exist and misattributed a third, after drafting help from GPT-4o.Court excluded the expert declaration and refused leave to file a corrected version, finding the expert's credibility shattered.
Mavundla v. MEC: Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs KwaZulu-Natal ↗[2025] ZAKZPHC 2 · Source: court opinion or orderHigh Court, KwaZulu-Natal (Pietermaritzburg)2025-01-08LawyerA supplementary notice of appeal cited nine cases, of which only two could be found to exist.Court referred the citation of nonexistent authorities to the Legal Practice Council for investigation.
Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC ↗2024 COA 128; No. 24CA0190 · Source: court opinion or orderColo. App.2024-12-26Self-represented litigantA self-represented tenant's opening brief mixed genuine citations with fictitious cases produced by a generative AI tool.No sanctions this time; the court warned lawyers and self-represented parties that future hallucinated citations may be sanctioned.
Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. ↗2024 WL 4882651; No. 1:23-cv-281 · Source: court opinion or orderE.D. Tex.2024-11-25LawyerA summary judgment response cited two nonexistent cases and attributed invented quotations to several real ones.$2,000 penalty, one hour of continuing legal education on generative AI, and an order to give the client a copy of the ruling.
Dayal ↗[2024] FedCFamC2F 1166 · Source: news reportFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia2024-08-27LawyerA solicitor handed up a list and summary of authorities generated by an AI tool, and the listed cases did not exist.Solicitor referred to the Victorian legal regulator, which later restricted the solicitor's practising certificate.
Dukuray v. Experian Information Solutions ↗No. 23 Civ. 9043 · Source: court opinion or orderS.D.N.Y.2024-07-26Self-represented litigantA self-represented plaintiff's opposition brief cited three federal appellate decisions that do not exist.No sanctions; the magistrate judge warned that further filings citing nonexistent cases may result in sanctions.
Iovino v. Michael Stapleton Associates, Ltd. ↗2024 WL 3520170; No. 5:21-cv-00064 · Source: court opinion or orderW.D. Va.2024-07-24LawyerObjections to a discovery ruling cited cases and quotations the court could not find, which the opposing party called ChatGPT run amok.Counsel ordered to show cause; at an October 2024 hearing the judge declined sanctions and sent the transcript to two state bars.
Anonymous v. New York City Department of Education ↗No. 1:24-cv-04232 · Source: court opinion or orderS.D.N.Y.2024-07-18Self-represented litigantA self-represented plaintiff's filing relied on case citations that neither the defendants nor the court could locate.Court declined to sanction in light of the plaintiff's status but warned that similar filings would not be treated kindly.
United States v. Cohen ↗724 F. Supp. 3d 251; No. 18-cr-602 · Source: court opinion or orderS.D.N.Y.2024-03-20LawyerA motion to end supervised release cited three cases that do not exist, which the client had found with Google Bard and passed to counsel.No sanctions; the court found the conduct negligent and embarrassing but saw no bad faith by counsel or client.
In re Neusom ↗No. 2:24-mc-00002 · Source: news reportM.D. Fla.2024-03-08LawyerPleadings relied on fabricated cases, and the lawyer told the grievance committee that AI may have been used and the citations were not checked.Court adopted its grievance committee's report and suspended the lawyer from practicing in that court for one year.
Kruse v. Karlen ↗692 S.W.3d 43; No. ED111172 · Source: court opinion or orderMo. Ct. App. (E.D.)2024-02-13Self-represented litigantTwenty-two of the twenty-four cases cited in the appellant's brief were fictitious, and the two real ones did not support the points made.Appeal dismissed and appellant ordered to pay $10,000 in damages to the respondent for a frivolous appeal.
Smith v. Farwell ↗Source: news reportMass. Super. Ct.2024-02-12LawyerThree memoranda opposing motions to dismiss cited at least four fictitious cases generated by an AI system used by junior staff.$2,000 sanction against plaintiff's counsel for failing to make a reasonable inquiry into the citations.
Zhang v. Chen ↗2024 BCSC 285 · Source: news reportB.C. Supreme Court2024-02LawyerA notice of application in a family case relied on two cases that ChatGPT had invented.Special costs refused, but the lawyer was held personally liable for ordinary costs and told to review all other files.
Park v. Kim ↗91 F.4th 610; No. 22-2057 · Source: court opinion or order2d Cir.2024-01-30LawyerAn appellate reply brief cited a state court decision that did not exist, which counsel admitted came from ChatGPT.Counsel referred to the court's Grievance Panel and ordered to give the client a copy of the decision; dismissal of the case affirmed.
Matter of Samuel ↗2024 NY Slip Op 24014 · Source: news reportN.Y. Sur. Ct., Kings County2024-01LawyerReply papers on a summary judgment motion in a will contest cited six cases, five of which were erroneous or did not exist.Court held that counsel's conduct was frivolous under the state sanctions rule and that sanctions were warranted.
Harber v. HMRC ↗[2023] UKFTT 1007 (TC) · Source: news reportFirst-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)2023-12-04Self-represented litigantA taxpayer's written response listed nine supporting tribunal decisions, none of which were genuine.Appeal dismissed on the merits; the tribunal accepted the taxpayer did not know the cases were fabricated.
People v. Crabill ↗No. 23PDJ067 · Source: court opinion or orderColo. Presiding Disciplinary Judge2023-11-22LawyerA motion to set aside judgment cited incorrect or fictitious cases found through ChatGPT, and the lawyer then blamed a legal intern when the judge asked.Suspension of one year and one day, with ninety days served and the rest stayed on completion of two years of probation.
Ex parte Lee ↗673 S.W.3d 755; No. 10-22-00281-CR · Source: court opinion or orderTex. App. (Waco)2023-07-19LawyerA bail appeal brief cited three published cases that do not exist, and the court noted the argument may have been prepared by AI.Court declined to issue a show cause order or report counsel, held the issue inadequately briefed and affirmed the bail ruling.
Mata v. Avianca, Inc. ↗678 F. Supp. 3d 443; No. 1:22-cv-01461 · Source: court opinion or orderS.D.N.Y.2023-06-22LawyerA brief opposing dismissal cited six court decisions, with quotations and citations, that ChatGPT had invented.$5,000 penalty imposed jointly on two lawyers and their firm, plus letters to the client and to each judge falsely named as an author.
Courthouse Digital is not a law firm and this page is not legal advice. Summaries are ours. Read the decision before citing or relying on it. To suggest a decision or a correction, write to info@courthousedigital.com.