AI Hallucination Cases

Order to Show Cause is here.

The limerick in question:

"There once was a litigant pro se,

Who let an AI lead the way.

It briefed every claim,

Cited cases—by name,

That vanished by morning’s next day."

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint included citations the Court could not locate; Greenspring moved for sanctions citing those nonexistent authorities. The Court found pro se status, correction attempts, and voluntary dismissal counseled against sanctions and therefore recommended denying the motion.

"Unfortunately, we're finding this problem arising more and more frequently […] When a lawyer cites imaginary legal authorities to our court as if they were law, we are compelled to refer that lawyer to the Bar because of the professional rules of conduct.

It doesn't take much moral imagination to understand why. As judges, we rely on attorneys to ethically represent their clients. We expect that representation to be zealous, honest, and competent. Indeed, lawyers owe the courts and their clients a duty to practice with competence and candor. By signing an appellate brief, a lawyer certifies that he or she has read the document and that to the best of the lawyer's knowledge, information, and belief there are "good grounds to support the document."

These ethical requirements are not excused simply because a computer program generated a faulty or misleading legal analysis. Nor is it an excuse that the attorney did not intend to mislead the court. "To state the obvious, it is a fundamental duty of attorneys to read the legal authorities they cite in appellate briefs or any other court filings to determine that the authorities stand for the propositions for which they are cited."

Obviously, that didn't happen when Ms. McLane filed this answer brief. Instead, counsel "fundamentally abdicated" her duty to the court and her client when she submitted this filing without verifying that the three cases cited in her brief said what she claimed they said. Accordingly, it is our duty to refer this matter to the Florida Bar to proceed as it deems appropriate."

The court found nearly every citation in counsel's motion to be incomplete, inaccurate, or fabricated, describing the references as typical of AI hallucinations and ordering counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

" Opposing counsel, and the court, should not have to parse case citations and parentheticals to discern whether cases exist, and if so, if they stand for the propositions asserted. "

The court imposed sanctions under Rule 11, requiring Mr. Owoc to complete 10 hours of community service and to certify the accuracy of legal citations in future filings if AI is used. No monetary penalty was imposed.

" We have the authority to sanction Wife under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) for failure to comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(c). See Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 399 So. 3d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). However, we decline to do so. Our decision is tempered by the fact that Wife is defending a judgment on appeal in an unrepresented capacity, Husband has not sought the imposition of sanctions, and Wife has not brought any other meritless or frivolous filings in this Court. See id. at 1187–88; Al-Hamim, 564 P.3d at 1125–26. Instead, we admonish Wife for her counterfeit brief and warn her that the Court will not regard similar infractions as mildly in the future. "

In May, the court asked Counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for filing briefs with hallucinations - especially since they continued filing hallucinated submissions after being warned about it.

In their Answer, Counsel revealed that "specific citations and quotes in question were inadvertently derived from internal draft text prepared using generative AI research tools designed to expedite legal research and brief drafting".

In the Order, the court noted that Counsel "was not candid to the Court when confronted about his use of AI, stating that some of these documents were “prepared under time constraints,” when he had nearly two more weeks before the deadline to submit his responses." The judge was also unimpressed by Counsel's attempt to shift the blame to a paralegal.

Finally, in the fee dispute order, the court cited this database to point out that its approach to award costs and fees was appropriate, especially given the egregiousness of the claimant's conduct in this case. The judge also took into account "the significant, if indirect, monetary losses that may arise from nonmonetary sanctions in other cases, such as loss of business and loss of reputation, or the monetary loss borne by a client when a motion or even an entire case is adversely decided due to counsel’s misuse of AI."

In the case of Crespo v. Tesla, Inc., the pro se plaintiff, Leonardo Crespo, submitted discovery motions containing fabricated case citations and a false quote, which were identified as potentially generated by AI. The court ordered Crespo to show cause for these submissions and admitted to using AI in his filings. The court acknowledged Crespo's candor and imposed sanctions requiring him to apologize to the defendant's counsel and pay reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the defendant in addressing the fake citations.

(In a subsequent ruling, the court averred that the reasonable fees amount was 921 USD.)

AI Use

First Counsel, who had not previously used AI for legal work, used an unspecified AI tool to assist with drafting a response. He failed to verify the citation before submission. Second Counsel, as local counsel, filed the response without checking the content or accuracy, even though he signed the document.

Second Counsel then said that he had initiated "procedural safeguards to prevent this error from happening again by ensuring he, and local counsel, undertake a comprehensive review of all citations and arguments filed with this and every court prior to submission to ensure their provenance can be traced to professional non-AI sources."

Hallucination Details

The hallucinated case was cited as controlling Delaware authority on privilege assignments. When challenged by Plaintiff, Defendants initially filed a bare withdrawal without explanation. Only upon court order did they disclose the AI origin and acknowledge the error. Counsel personally apologized to the court and opposing counsel.

Ruling/Sanction

Judge William Matthewman imposed a multi-part sanction:

• Attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff in rebutting the hallucinated citation—jointly payable by Counsel
• Required CLE on AI ethics within 30 days, with proof of completion due by June 20, 2025
• Monetary fines: $1,000 (First Counsel) and $500 (Second Counsel), payable to the Court registry

The Court emphasized that the submission of hallucinated citations—particularly when filed and signed by two attorneys—constitutes reckless disregard for procedural and ethical obligations. Though no bad faith was found, the conduct was sanctionable under Rule 11, § 1927, the Court’s inherent authority, and local professional responsibility rules.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The Court distinguished this case from more egregious incidents (O’Brien v. Flick, Thomas v. Pangburn) because the attorneys admitted their error and did not lie or attempt to cover it up. However, the delay in correction and failure to check the citation in the first place were serious enough to warrant monetary penalties and educational obligations.

Counsel later explained how the motion came to be: see here.