AI Hallucination Cases

AI Use

Counsel used ChatOn to rewrite a reply brief with case law, under time pressure, without verifying the outputs. The five cases did not exist; citations were entirely fictional. Counsel later admitted this in a sworn declaration and at hearing, describing her actions as a lapse caused by workload and inexperience with AI.

Hallucination Details

Fabricated cases included:

• Klein v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 406 F.2d 1004 (cited case does not exist)
• Gordon v. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co., 202 F. Supp. 2d 290
• Mitchell v. JCG Industries, 2010 WL 11627832
• Hollander v. Sweeney, 2005 WL 19904045
• Davis v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3452601

None of these cases matched any legal source. Counsel filed them as part of a sworn statement under penalty of perjury.

Ruling/Sanction

The court imposed a $1,000 sanction payable to the Clerk; ordered the counsel to serve the order on her client and file proof of service. The court acknowledged her sincere remorse and remedial CLE activity, but emphasized the seriousness of submitting hallucinated cases under oath. Sanctions were tailored for deterrence, not punishment.

Key Judicial Reasoning

Quoting Park v. Kim and Mata v. Avianca, the court held that submitting legal claims based on nonexistent authorities without checking them constitutes subjective bad faith. Signing a sworn filing without knowledge of its truth is independently sanctionable. Time pressure is not a defense. Lawyers cannot outsource core duties to generative AI and disclaim responsibility for the results.

After explaining what happened (document) counsel opted to non-suit all remaining claims, which means that the court never ruled on the show cause proceedings.

AI Use

Counsel filed opposition briefs citing two nonexistent cases. The court suspected generative AI use based on "hallucination" patterns but Counsel neither admitted nor explained the citations satisfactorily. Failure to comply with a standing AI order aggravated sanctions.

Hallucination Details

Two fake cases cited. Citation numbers and Westlaw references pointed to irrelevant or unrelated cases. No affidavit or real case documents were produced when ordered.

Ruling/Sanction

Counsel's appearance was struck with prejudice. The Court ordered notification to the State Bar of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District Bar. Consel was required to inform his client, Bevins, of the sanctions and the need for new counsel if re-filing.

AI Use

The judgment states that the only other explanation for the fabricated cases was the use of artificial intelligence.

Hallucination Details

The following five nonexistent cases were cited:

• R (El Gendi) v Camden [2020] EWHC 2435 (Admin)
• R (Ibrahim) v Waltham Forest [2019] EWHC 1873
• R (H) v Ealing [2021] EWHC 939 (Admin)
• R (KN) v Barnet [2020] EWHC 1066 (Admin)
• R (Balogun) v Lambeth [2020] EWCA Civ. 1442

Ruling/Sanction

The court imposed wasted costs orders against both barrister and solicitor, reduced the claimant’s recoverable costs, and ordered the judgment to be provided to the BSB and SRA.

AI Use

Counsel hired a freelance attorney through LAWCLERK to prepare a filing. He made minimal edits and admitted not verifying any of the case law before signing. The filing included multiple fabricated cases and misquoted others. The court concluded these were AI hallucinations, likely produced by ChatGPT or similar.

Hallucination Details

Examples of non-existent cases cited include:

Moncada v. Ruiz, Vega-Mendoza v. Homeland Security, Morales v. ICE Field Office Director, Meza v. United States Attorney General, Hernandez v. Sessions, and Ramirez v. DHS.

All were either entirely fictitious or misquoted real decisions.

Ruling/Sanction

The Court sanctioned Counsel by:

• Ordering a $1,500 fine
• Requiring a 1-hour CLE on AI/legal ethics
• Ordering him to self-report to the New Mexico and Texas bars
• Ordering him to report the freelance lawyer to the New York bar
• Requiring notification of LAWCLERK
• Requiring proof of compliance by May 15, 2025

Key Judicial Reasoning

The court emphasized that counsel’s failure to verify cited cases, coupled with blind reliance on subcontracted work, constituted a violation of Rule 11(b)(2). The court analogized to other AI-sanctions cases. While the fine was modest, the court imposed significant procedural obligations to ensure deterrence.

AI Use

The respondent retailer's defense cited Italian Supreme Court judgments that did not exist, claiming support for their arguments regarding lack of subjective bad faith. During subsequent hearings, it was admitted that these fake citations were generated by ChatGPT during internal research by an assistant, and the lead lawyer had failed to independently verify them.

Hallucination Details

Cited fabricated cassation rulings allegedly supporting subjective good faith defenses. No such rulings could be found in official databases; court confirmed their nonexistence. Hallucinated decisions related to counterfeit goods sales defenses

Ruling/Sanction

The court declined to impose a financial sanction under Article 96 Italian Code of Civil Procedure .

AI Use

Nguyen did not confirm which AI tool was used but acknowledged that AI “may have contributed.” The court inferred the use of generative AI from the pattern of hallucinated citations and accepted Nguyen’s candid acknowledgment of error, though this did not excuse the Rule 11 violation.

Hallucination Details

Fictitious citations included:

• Kraft v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 668 F. Supp. 2d 806 (E.D. Ark. 2009)
• Young v. Johnson & Johnson, 983 F. Supp. 2d 747 (E.D. Ark. 2013)
• Carpenter v. Auto-West Inc., 553 S.W.3d 480 (Ark. 2018)
• Miller v. Hall, 360 S.W.2d 704 (Ark. 1962)

None of these cases existed in Westlaw or Lexis, and the quotes attributed to them were fabricated.

Outcome / Sanction

The court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction on Counsel for citing non-existent case law in violation of Rule 11(b). It found her conduct unjustified, despite her apology and explanation that AI may have been involved. The court emphasized that citing fake legal authorities is an abuse of the adversary system and warrants sanctions.

AI Use

The judgment refers repeatedly to use of “AI-based websites” and “artificial intelligence hallucinations,” and quotes prior decisions warning against reliance on AI without verification. Although no specific tool was named, the Court inferred use based on the stylistic pattern and total absence of real citations. Petitioner provided no clarification and ultimately sought to withdraw the petition once challenged.

Hallucination Details

The legal authorities cited in the petition included:

• Case names and citations that do not exist in Israeli legal databases or official court archives
• Quotations and doctrinal references attributed to rulings that were entirely fictitious
• Systematic internal inconsistencies and citation errors typical of AI-generated legal writing

The Court made efforts to locate the decisions independently but failed, and the petitioner never supplied the sources after being ordered to do so.

Ruling/Sanction

The Court dismissed the petition in limine (on threshold grounds), citing “lack of clean hands” and “deficient legal infrastructure.” It imposed a ₪7,000 costs order against the petitioner and referred to the growing body of jurisprudence on AI hallucinations. The Court explicitly warned that future petitions tainted by similar conduct would face harsher responses, including possible professional discipline.

Key Judicial Reasoning

Justice Noam Sohlberg, writing for the panel, observed that citing fictitious legal authorities—whether by AI or not—is as egregious as factual misrepresentation. "there is no justification for distinguishing, factually, between one form of deception and another. Deception that would justify the dismissal of a petition due to lack of clean hands—such deception, whether of this kind or that—is invalid in its essence; both forms demand proper judicial response. Their legal identity is the same."

AI Use

Counsel admitted using ChatGPT to draft two motions (Motion to Withdraw and Motion for Leave to Appeal), without verifying the cases or researching the AI tool’s reliability.

Hallucination Details

2 Fake cases:

• McNally v. Eyeglass World, LLC, 897 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (D. Nev. 2012) — nonexistent
• Behm v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 460 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2006) — nonexistent

Misused cases:

• Degen v. United States, cited for irrelevant proposition
• Dow Chemical Canada Inc. v. HRD Corp., cited despite later vacatur
• Eavenson, Auchmuty Greenwald v. Holtzman, cited despite being overruled by Third Circuit precedent

Ruling/Sanction

The Court sanctioned Counsel $2,500 payable to the court and ordered him to complete at least one hour of CLE on AI and legal ethics. The opinion emphasized that deterrence applied both specifically to Counsel and generally to the profession.

Key Judicial Reasoning

Rule 11(b)(2) mandates reasonable inquiry into all legal contentions. No AI tool displaces the attorney’s personal duty. Novelty of AI tools is not a defense.

AI Use

Counsel from Morgan & Morgan used the firm's internal AI platform (MX2.law, reportedly using ChatGPT) to add case law support to draft motions in limine in a product liability case concerning a hoverboard fire. This was reportedly his first time using AI for this purpose.

Hallucination Details

Eight out of nine case citations in the filed motions were non-existent or led to differently named cases. Another cited case number was real but belonged to a different case with a different judge. The legal standard description was also deemed "peculiar".

Ruling/Sanction

After defense counsel raised issues, the Judge issued an order to show cause. The plaintiffs' attorneys admitted the error, withdrew the motions, apologized, paid opposing counsel's fees related to the motions, and reported implementing new internal firm policies and training on AI use. Judge Rankin found Rule 11 violations. Sanctions imposed were: $3,000 fine on the drafter and revocation of his pro hac vice admission; $1,000 fine each on the signing attorneys for failing their duty of reasonable inquiry before signing.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The court acknowledged the attorneys' remedial steps and honesty but emphasized the non-delegable duty under Rule 11 to make a reasonable inquiry into the law before signing any filing. The court stressed that while AI can be a tool, attorneys remain responsible for verifying its output. The judge noted this was the "latest reminder to not blindly rely on AI platforms' citations".

AI Use

The petitioner’s counsel used an AI-based platform to draft the legal petition.

Hallucination Details

The petition cited 36 fabricated or misquoted Israeli Supreme Court rulings. Five references were entirely fictional, 14 had mismatched case details, and 24 included invented quotes. Upon judicial inquiry, counsel admitted reliance on an unnamed website recommended by colleagues, without verifying the information's authenticity. The Court concluded that the errors were likely the product of generative AI.

Ruling/Sanction

The High Court of Justice dismissed the petition on the merits, finding no grounds for intervention in the Sharia courts’ decisions. Despite the misconduct, no personal sanctions or fines were imposed on counsel, citing it as the first such incident to reach the High Court and adopting a lenient stance “far beyond the letter of the law.” However, the judgment was explicitly referred to the Court Administrator for system-wide attention.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The Court issued a stern warning about the ethical duties of lawyers using AI tools, underscoring that professional obligations of diligence, verification, and truthfulness remain intact regardless of technological convenience. The Court suggested that in future cases, personal sanctions on attorneys might be appropriate to protect judicial integrity.

AI Use

The appellant’s counsel admitted to having used ChatGPT, claiming the submission of false case law was the result of “unintentional use.” The fabricated citations were used in an appeal against a reintegration of possession order, in favor of the appellant’s stepmother and father’s heirs.

Hallucination Details

The brief contained numerous non-existent judicial precedents and references to legal doctrine that were either incorrect or entirely fictional. The court described them as “fabricated” and considered them serious enough to potentially mislead the court.

Ruling/Sanction

While the 6th Civil Chamber temporarily suspended the reintegration order, it further imposed a 10% fine on the value of the claim for bad-faith litigation and ordered that a copy of the appeal be forwarded to the Santa Catarina section of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB/SC) for further investigation.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The court emphasized that the legal profession is a public calling entailing duties and responsibilities. It cautioned that AI must be used “with caution and restraint”. The chamber unanimously supported the sanction.

Initial filing also included part of the ChatGPT prompt.

"The Applicant engaged the Copilot [Microsoft’s Artificial Intelligence product] in a range of probing questions pertaining to superannuation and taxation matters, upon which in part, it returned the following responses:

The Explanatory Memorandum to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1992, which introduced the new regime taxing superannuation benefits, states in paragraph 2.20 that “the Bill will provide a tax rebate of 15 per cent for disability superannuation pensions. This will apply to all disability pensions, irrespective of whether they are paid from a taxed or an untaxed source. The rebate recognises that disability pensions are paid as compensation for the loss of earning capacity and are not merely a form of retirement income.

1. I have examined the Explanatory Memorandum to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1992. I was unable to locate any paragraph in that document in the same or similar terms to the paragraph generated by Copilot. It did not contain a paragraph 2.20.
2. It has been noted by others that AI bots are prone to hallucinations.[35] That appears to be what has happened here. It is my assessment that submitting unverified material generated by AI, is not consistent with a party’s duty to use their best endeavours to assist the Tribunal to achieve its statutory objectives. To expect the Tribunal to read and consider material which a party does not know is authentic impedes the Tribunal’s attempts to provide a mechanism of review that ensures that applications are resolved as quickly and with as little expense as a proper consideration of the issues permits.
3. Nothing in the remainder of the applicant’s submissions altered my view that the untaxed element of the benefit should be taxed under Subdivision 301-B."

AI Use

Counsel used ChatGPT to generate a summary of cases for a submission, which included fictitious Federal Court decisions and invented quotes from a Tribunal ruling. He inserted this output into the brief without verifying the sources. Counsel later admitted this under affidavit, citing time pressure, health issues, and unfamiliarity with AI's risks. He noted that guidance from the NSW Supreme Court was only published after the filing.

Hallucination Details

The 25 October 2024 submission cited at least 16 completely fabricated decisions (e.g. Murray v Luton [2001] FCA 1245, Bavinton v MIMA [2017] FCA 712) and included supposed excerpts from the AAT’s ruling that did not appear in the actual decision. The Court and Minister’s counsel were unable to verify any of the cited cases or quotes.

Ruling/Sanction

Judge Skaros ordered referral to the OLSC under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2014, noting breaches of rules 19.1 and 22.5 of the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules. The Court accepted Counsel’s apology and health-related mitigation but found that the conduct fell short of professional standards and posed systemic risks given increasing AI use in legal practice.

Key Judicial Reasoning

While acknowledging that Counsel corrected the record and showed contrition, the Court found that the damage—including wasted judicial resources and delay to proceedings—had already occurred. The ex parte email submitting corrected materials, without notifying opposing counsel, further compounded the breach. Given the public interest in safeguarding the integrity of litigation amidst growing AI integration, referral to the OLSC was deemed necessary, even without naming Counsel in the judgment.

In the case of Gonzalez v. Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, the court found that Plaintiff's counsel, John L. Pittman III, included fabricated citations, miscited cases, and misrepresented legal propositions in his response to a motion to dismiss. Pittman initially denied using AI but later admitted to using Lexis Nexis's AI citation generator. The court granted the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's response and imposed monetary sanctions on Pittman, requiring him to pay $3,852.50 in attorney's fees and $108.54 in costs to the defendant. The court deemed this an appropriate exercise of its inherent power due to the abundance of technical and substantive errors in the brief, which inhibited the defendant's ability to efficiently respond.

Key Judicial Reasoning

Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym found the motion legally deficient on multiple grounds. In addition, she emphasized that counsel must not rely on fake or unverified authority. She cited Mata, Park, Gauthier, and others as cautionary examples of courts imposing sanctions for AI-generated hallucinations. The court reaffirmed that the use of AI does not lessen the duty to verify the existence and relevance of cited law.

AI Use

Counsel admitted using a “new legal research medium”, appears to be a generative AI system or platform capable of generating fictitious case law. Counsel did not deny using AI, but claimed the system may have been corrupted or unreliable. The amended filing removed the false authorities.

Hallucination Details

The court did not identify the specific fake cases but confirmed that “citations to non-existent cases” were included in Defendants’ original brief. Counsel’s subsequent filing corrected the record but did not explain how the citations passed into the brief in the first place.

Ruling/Sanction

Judge William Griesbach denied the motion for summary judgment on the merits, but addressed the citation misconduct separately. He cited Rule 11 and Park v. Kim (91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024)) to underline the duty to verify. No formal sanctions were imposed, but counsel was explicitly warned that further use of non-existent authorities would not be tolerated.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The court emphasized that even if the submission of false citations was not malicious, it was still a serious breach of Rule 11 obligations. Legal contentions must be “warranted by existing law,” and attorneys are expected to read and confirm cited cases. The failure to do so, even if caused by AI use, is unacceptable. The court accepted counsel’s corrective effort but insisted that future violations would be sanctionable.

AI Use

The judgment does not explicitly confirm that generative AI was used, but the judge strongly suspects ChatGPT or a similar tool was the source. The judge even ran prompts into ChatGPT and confirmed that the tool responded with fabricated support for the same fake cases used in the submission. Counsel blamed overwork and delegation to a candidate attorney (Ms. Farouk), who denied AI use but gave vague and evasive answers.

Hallucination Details

Fabricated or misattributed cases included:

• Pieterse v. The Public Protector (no such case exists at cited location)
• Burgers v. The Executive Committee..., Dube v. Schleich, City of Cape Town v. Aon SA, Makro Properties v. Raal, Standard Bank v. Lethole — none found in SAFLII or major reporters
• Citations were often invented or misattributed to irrelevant decisions (e.g., a Competition Tribunal merger approval cited as support for service rules)

The supplementary notice of appeal included misleading summaries with no accurate paragraph citations, and no proper authority was ever provided for key procedural points.

Ruling/Sanction

• Application for leave to appeal dismissed in full
• Legal representatives ordered to pay costs of the 22 and 25 September 2024 appearances de bonis propriis
• Judgment referred to the Legal Practice Council
• Judge emphasized that the conduct went beyond the leniency shown in Parker v. Forsyth, as it involved unverified submissions in a signed court filing and then doubling down during oral argument.

Key Judicial Reasoning

Justice Bezuidenhout issued a lengthy and stern warning on the professional obligation to verify authorities. She held that “relying on AI technologies when doing legal research is irresponsible and downright unprofessional,” and emphasized that even ignorance of AI’s flaws does not excuse unethical conduct. The judgment discusses comparative standards, ethical obligations, and recent literature in detail.

AI Use

Counsel admitted the fictitious citations originated from an “online legal database commonly used by lawyers.” Though the platform is unnamed, the court ruled out the standard legal database Nevo and concluded the “source of the hallucination is unclear.” Counsel apologized and claimed no intent to mislead.

Hallucination Details

The motion cited ten fabricated decisions—each with full party names, court locations, file numbers, and dates—purportedly showing that indirect child support debts owed to the National Insurance Institute could be discharged in bankruptcy. The court could not find a single one in any judicial database and ordered counsel to produce them. When he failed, he admitted they were inauthentic. The only real cited case (Skok) did not support the petitioner’s position.

Ruling/Sanction

The court dismissed the petition after finding that: (i) the cited decisions were fabricated; (ii) the only valid case did not support the argument; and (iii) under Israel’s Bankruptcy Ordinance, child support debts are not dischargeable by default. Despite the state’s failure to respond, the judge ruled sua sponte and imposed ₪1,000 in costs for procedural abuse.

Key Judicial Reasoning

Judge Saharai held that even if the hallucinated cases were cited inadvertently, their submission constituted a grave failure to meet professional obligations. He emphasized that a court cannot function when presented with legal fictions dressed up as precedent. The decision cited the attorney’s duty under section 54 of the Bar Law (1961) and ethics rules 2 and 34.

AI Use

Monk admitted using the Claude AI tool to draft a summary judgment opposition without adequately verifying the case citations or quotations. He later claimed to have attempted post-hoc verification through Lexis AI but did not correct the errors until after a judicial show cause order.

Hallucination Details

Cited two completely nonexistent cases. Also fabricated quotations attributed to real cases, including Morales v. SimuFlite, White v. FCI USA, Burton v. Freescale, among others. Several "quotes" did not appear anywhere in the cited opinions.

Ruling/Sanction

The court imposed a $2,000 fine, ordered Monk to complete at least one hour of CLE on generative AI in legal practice, and mandated formal disclosure of the sanctions order to his client. It also permitted amendment of the defective filing but warned of the severity of the misconduct.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The court emphasized that attorneys remain personally responsible for the verification of all filings under Rule 11, regardless of technology used. Use of AI does not dilute the duty of candor. Continued silence and failure to rectify errors after opposing counsel flagged them exacerbated the misconduct.

In a trademark opposition case between Monster Energy Company and Pacific Smoke International Inc., the Applicant, Pacific Smoke, cited a non-existent case, 'Hennes & Mauritz AB v M & S Meat Shops Inc, 2012 TMOB 7', in support of its argument. This was identified as an AI hallucination by the court. The court disregarded this citation and reminded the Applicant of the seriousness of relying on false citations, whether accidental or AI-generated.

In the November 2024 Show Cause Order, Judge Robinson noted that: "First, the briefing does not cite the forum-selection clause from the contract between the parties; instead, it cites and quotes a forum-selection clause that appears nowhere in the papers submitted by the parties. Second, Defendant’s reply brief includes a citation, Hogan v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 19-CV-00262-JPM, 2020 WL 1882334 (D. Kan. Apr. 15, 2020), in which the court purportedly “transferred a case to the Southern District of Texas because the majority of the witnesses were located in Texas. The court found that the burden on the witnesses outweighed the convenience of litigating the case in Kansas.” As far as the Court can tell, this case does not exist. The Westlaw database number pulls up no case; the Court has found no case in CM/ECF between the parties “Hogan” and “Allstate Insurance Co.” Moreover, docket numbers in this district have at least four digits—not three—after the case-type designation, and there is no judge in this district with the initials “JPM.”"

During the show cause hearing (Transcript), Counsel apologised and pledged to reimburse the other side's costs, as well as his client's.

AI Use

Plaintiff’s counsel admitted using generative AI to draft a motion to remand without independently verifying the legal citations or the factual accuracy of quoted complaint allegations.

Hallucination Details

Cited a fabricated case (details of the specific case name not listed in the ruling). Included fabricated quotations from the complaint, suggesting nonexistent factual allegations.

Ruling/Sanction

The Court imposed a $2,500 sanction payable by December 30, 2024. Counsel was also required to notify the California State Bar of the sanction and file proof of notification and payment. The Court recognized mitigating factors (health issues, post-hoc corrective measures) but stressed the seriousness of the violations.

Key Judicial Reasoning

Rule 11 requires attorneys to conduct a reasonable inquiry into both facts and law. Use of AI does not diminish this duty. Subjective good faith is irrelevant: violations occur even without intent to deceive. AI-generated filings must be reviewed with the same rigor as traditional submissions.

The lawyer for the petitioner admitted to not reviewing the memorandum, which was prepared by a paralegal. The court deemed the Pretrial Memorandum stricken but did not impose a monetary penalty, considering the economic situation of the petitioner and the lawyer's service to a client who might otherwise be unrepresented. It was also pertinent that the law being stated was accurate (even if the citations were wrong).

Show cause order is here. Counsel responded to Show Cause order in this document. Show cause hearing transcript is here.

AI Use

The Court noted that the false citations could stem from AI, disorganized database use, or invention. Counsel claimed a database error but provided no evidence. The Court found the origin irrelevant: verification duty lies with the submitting lawyer.

Hallucination Details

Nineteen separate fabricated citations to fictional Constitutional Court judgments. Fake quotations falsely attributed to those nonexistent decisions. Cited to falsely bolster claims of constitutional relevance in an amparo.

Ruling/Sanction

The Constitutional Court unanimously found that the inclusion of nineteen fabricated citations constituted a breach of the respect owed to the Court and its judges under Article 553.1 of the Spanish Organic Law of the Judiciary. Issued a formal warning (apercibimiento) rather than a fine due to absence of prior offenses. Referred the matter to the Barcelona Bar for possible disciplinary proceedings

Key Judicial Reasoning

The Court stressed that even absent express insults, fabricating authority gravely disrespects the judiciary’s function. Irrespective of whether AI was used or a database error occurred, the professional duty of diligent verification was breached. The Court noted that fake citations disrupt the court’s work both procedurally and institutionally.

As acknowledged by Counsel, he also used AI to generate parts of his pleadings.

Counsel admitted the list of authorities and accompanying summaries were generated by an AI research module embedded in his legal practice software. He stated he did not verify the content before submitting it. The judge found that neither Counsel nor any other legal practitioner at his firm had checked the validity of the generated output.

The court accepted Counsel’s unconditional apology, noted remedial steps, and acknowledged his cooperation and candour. However, it nonetheless referred the matter to the Office of the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner under s 30 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic) for independent assessment. The referral was explicitly framed as non-punitive and in the public interest.

In September 2025, the Board sanctioned Counsel, preventing him from acting as a principal lawyer or operate his own practice, and put him down for two years of supervision (see here).

While the Court initially organised show cause proceedings leading to potential sanctions, the case was eventually settled. Nevertheless, the Court stated that it "intends to report Ms. Rasmussen’s use of mis-cited and nonexistent cases in the demurrer to the State Bar", unless she objected to "this tentative ruling".

In response to a motion by the defendant (Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd.), the plaintiff's counsel submitted a response that included several purported quotations from Israeli Supreme Court decisions to support his arguments.

Judge Daniel Kirs discovered that these citations were problematic: party names did not match case numbers, decision dates were incorrect, and one cited judge was incorrect. Crucially, the quoted text did not appear in the actual decisions, even when counsel was ordered to and did produce copies of the judgments he claimed to have cited.

The judge considered the counsel's conduct to be more severe than simply misattributing a minority opinion; it was the presentation of a series of non-existent Supreme Court rulings. He explicitly noted that Adv. Faris did not claim these were fabrications by an AI tool that he failed to check (unlike the Mata v. Avianca case). Instead, Adv. Faris maintained that he himself had prepared these "summaries" after reading the cases.

Due to the severity of this conduct—presenting fabricated Supreme Court "quotations" and misrepresenting their origin—the judge ordered the matter to be referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration for consideration of further action.

Separately, the defendant's underlying request (to send clarification questions to a court-appointed expert) was granted. The judge found that the "severe misconduct" of the plaintiff's counsel constituted a "special reason" to allow this, even though the defendant had previously waived the opportunity. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant NIS 600 for legal fees related to this part of the motion.

(Summary by Gemini 2.5)

AI Use

The appellant relied on ChatGPT to generate a list of ten "economically comparable" vehicles for purposes of arguing a lower trade-in value to reduce bpm (car registration tax). The Court noted this explicitly and criticized the mechanical reliance on AI outputs without human verification or contextual adjustment.

Hallucination Details

ChatGPT produced a list of luxury and exotic cars supposedly comparable to a Ferrari 812 Superfast. The Court found that mere AI-generated association of vehicles based on "economic context and competition position" is insufficient under EU law principles requiring real-world comparability from the perspective of an average consumer.

Ruling/Sanction

The Court rejected the appellant’s valuation arguments wholesale. It stressed that serious, human-verified reference vehicle comparisons were mandatory and that ChatGPT lists could not establish the legally required comparability standard under Dutch and EU law (Art. 110 TFEU). No monetary sanction imposed, but appellant’s entire case collapsed on evidentiary grounds.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The Court reasoned that a list generated by an AI program like ChatGPT, without rigorous control or verification, is inadmissible for evidentiary purposes. AI outputs lack the nuanced judgment necessary to assess "similar vehicles" under Art. 110 TFEU and Dutch bpm tax rules. It underscored that the test is based on the perceptions of a human average consumer, not algorithmic proximity.

AI Use

The appellants’ lawyer submitted an opening brief riddled with hallucinated cases and mischaracterizations. The court did not directly investigate the technological origin but cited the systematic errors as consistent with known AI-generated hallucination patterns.

Hallucination Details

Two cited cases were completely nonexistent. Additionally, a dozen cited decisions were badly misrepresented, e.g., Hydrick v. Hunter and Wall v. County of Orange were cited for parent–child removal claims when they had nothing to do with such issues.

Ruling/Sanction

The Ninth Circuit struck the appellants' opening brief under Circuit Rule 28–1 and dismissed the appeal. The panel emphasized that fabricated citations and grotesque misrepresentations violate Rule 28(a)(8)(A) requirements for arguments with coherent citation support.

AI Use

The appellant's authorized representative submitted arguments based on ChatGPT outputs attempting to challenge the tax valuation of real property. The representative failed to specify what exact queries were made to ChatGPT, rendering the outputs unverifiable and untrustworthy.

Hallucination Details

No explicit fabricated case law was cited. Instead, the appellant relied on generalized, unverifiable statements produced by ChatGPT to contest the capitalization factor and COVID-19 valuation discounts applied by the tax authorities.

Ruling/Sanction

The Court refused to attribute any evidentiary value to the ChatGPT-based arguments. It found that without disclosure of the input prompts and verification of AI outputs, the content was legally inadmissible as probative material. However, no sanctions were imposed, likely due to the novelty of the misuse and the lack of bad faith.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The Court emphasized that judicial proceedings demand verifiable, fact-based arguments. AI outputs that lack transparency (particularly about the underlying prompt and methodology) cannot serve as a substitute for evidence. The judgment explicitly notes that reliance on ChatGPT statements without verifiability "does not affect" the Court’s reasoning or the tax authority's burden of proof.

"[29] Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court isan abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court.Unchecked, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice."

AI Use

In a wrongful death case, plaintiff's counsel filed four memoranda opposing motions to dismiss. The drafting was done by junior staff (an associate and two recent law school graduates not yet admitted to the bar) who used an unidentified AI system to locate supporting authorities. The supervising attorney signed the filings after reviewing them for style and grammar, but admittedly did not check the accuracy of the citations and was unaware AI had been used.

Hallucination Details

Judge Brian A. Davis noticed citations "seemed amiss" and, after investigation, could not locate three cases cited in the memoranda. These were fictitious federal and state case citations.

Ruling/Sanction

After being questioned, the supervising attorney promptly investigated, admitted the citations were fake and AI-generated, expressed sincere contrition, and explained his lack of familiarity with AI risks. Despite accepting the attorney's candor and lack of intent to mislead, Judge Davis imposed a $2,000 monetary sanction on the supervising counsel, payable to the court.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The court found that sanctions were warranted because counsel failed to take "basic, necessary precautions" (i.e., verifying citations) before filing. While the sanction was deemed "mild" due to the attorney's candor and unfamiliarity with AI (distinguishing it from Mata's bad faith finding), the court issued a strong warning that a defense based on ignorance "will be less credible, and likely less successful, as the dangers associated with the use of Generative AI systems become more widely known". The case underscores the supervisory responsibilities of senior attorneys.