AI Hallucination Cases

MIO produced a prolix Defence containing multiple non-existent, miscited and misapplied authorities. The Court found AI-driven research produced hallucinatory results and that MIO failed adequately to verify authorities, amounting to reckless conduct warranting an indemnity costs order.

The court found that the majority of legal authorities in appellant counsel's reply brief were incorrect or did not support the propositions for which they were cited. The court struck the reply brief, imposed monetary sanctions of $5,070, and directed a copy of the opinion be forwarded to the State Bar.

Counsel had already been sanctioned in different case, and professed having gone through CLE on generative AI.

"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."

See story here and here.

Story can be found here.

Allegations that these are made-up quotes involving AI were aired in various blogs and online comments (see, e.g., here and here).

The tribunal eventually issued a correction, and then claimed that it was not AI but the result of "an exchange of correspondence between [the judge] and a judicial colleague" - which raises more questions than it answers.