AI Hallucination Cases

From the docket record: "Court sanctions DA Solis by striking the State's Response for failure to disclose AI, using hallucinated and false citations and for admitting failure to disclose AI. Court grants Motion to Dismiss for defective bind-over, in its entirety, without prejudice. "

Order to Show Cause is here.

Counsel Steven A. Feldman repeatedly filed submissions containing AI-generated nonexistent case citations and misattributed quotations. Opposing counsel flagged numerous errors; the Court found fabricated citations and false quotes, concluded counsel acted in bad faith or with conscious avoidance, struck the filings, and entered default judgment against counsel's client Affable Avenue LLC. The Court permitted opposing counsel to apply for attorneys' fees.

Order to show cause was here.

Show Cause Order is here.

The court identified citations to seemingly nonexistent cases in the plaintiff's filings (e.g., "Hernandez" and "United States v. Miller"), noted prior warnings about AI-generated or unvetted citations, denied the motions, and warned it may recommend dismissal or similar sanctions if the conduct continues.

The tribunal rejected the company's request because none of the grounds were sufficiently detailed and the petition was manifestly drafted using a generative AI tool; the court relied on article R.222-1(7) to dismiss the filing for lack of necessary precision.

"Judges and commentators continue to warn lawyers about the risks of artificial intelligence shortcuts. We today address a more fundamental concern: lack of diligence and supervision of less experienced lawyers who can fairly expect supervision. The lawyers disregarded basic fundamental understandings learned in law school about the need to ensure the case citations presented to judges support what lawyers say they do. Counsel fell far short of this fundamental obligation warranting monetary sanctions against the New York co-counsel and non-monetary sanctions against both the New York co-counsel and her local Philadelphia co-counsel.

Attorneys are again forewarned. Judges and their talented lawyers in Chambers scrutinize memoranda. Submissions containing unverified authority divert limited resources from other litigants who rely on their advocates’ careful research, accurate citation, and disciplined advocacy. These sanctions serve as a reminder the attorney’s oath of admission demands no less."

The Court noted prior use of hallucinated cases attributed to purported AI use and denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend as futile. The Court previously denied an earlier motion for failing to comply and because of hallucinated cases; here futility and procedural deficiencies warranted denial.