AI Hallucination Cases

The court noted prior fabricated citations in plaintiff's earlier briefing (for which counsel had already been sanctioned). In the current filing the court found no fabricated citations but identified inaccurate legal contentions—e.g., a rule statement claiming withholding ready-to-produce material while seeking extra time is sanctionable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)—which the court found unsupported and incorrect. The court suspected plaintiff used AI again, but simply removed the citations. The court admonished counsel to review AI-generated work and comply with Rule 11 but did not impose additional sanctions here.

The court admonished the pro se plaintiff, expressing concern he may be relying on artificial intelligence to draft filings and cite cases without confirming accuracy, and directed him to review Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; no specific fabricated citations or false quotations were identified in the opinion.

Claimant cited several inapplicable regulations to support reimbursement. When directed to supply the texts, claimant admitted he had used artificial intelligence to create his submission and withdrew reliance on the cited regulations except for JTR 053710. The Board denied the claim.

Earlier tentative order is here.

Original Show Cause Order is here.

Show Cause Order is available here.

Court denied OSC/motion on procedural safe-harbor grounds but found defendants submitted miscited, non-existent, and inapposite authorities (and noted risk of AI-generated fake citations). Defendants accepted responsibility but no sanctions imposed.

"When criminal defense attorneys fail to comply with their ethical obligations, their conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system. It also damages their credibility and potentially impugns the validity of the arguments they make on behalf of their clients, calling into question their competency and ability to ensure defendants are provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Thus, criminal defense attorneys must make every effort to confirm that the legal citations they supply exist and accurately reflect the law for which they are cited. That did not happen here."

Counsel admitted he did not verify citations. The court imposed a $1,000 sanction payable personally by counsel, ordered 1 hour CLE on generative AI, and referred him to the Disciplinary Committee.

"This case adds yet another unfortunate chapter to the story of artificial intelligence misuse in the legal profession. Here, Defendants' counsel not only included an AI-hallucinated citation and quotations in the summary judgment brief that led to the filing of this motion for sanctions, but also included multiple new AIhallucinated citations and quotations in Defendants' brief opposing this motion. In other words, counsel relied upon unvetted AI—in his telling, via inadequately supervised colleagues—to defend his use of unvetted AI."

The appellate opinion and editor's note identify numerous incorrect or non-existent case citations in the appellant's filings. The court treated those citations as unreliable, found several to be fictitious or unlocatable, and declined to credit them in resolving the appeals.

Case dismissed for "good cause" in light of motions to dismiss expert. Expert had confessed using ChatGPT.

The Court observed that several authorities cited in the Kogers' pro se filings do not exist and appeared to be fabricated (noting possible use of AI), warned of Rule 9011 implications, and treated the filings as part of an abusive litigation strategy warranting dismissal and a one-year filing bar.

Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Errata admitting that erroneous citation and quotation errors in multiple briefs resulted from the attorney's use of generative AI. The Court refused to consider the amended briefs/errata for purposes of its decision and treated any propositions supported solely by the incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported. The Court declined to impose sanctions but warned the attorney that relying on AI without proper oversight can be sanctionable under the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct.

In a later order, the court declined to order any sanctions in "light of counsel's acknowledgment of the fact that the quotations at issue were not independently verified against the actual opinions and acceptance of responsibility and the remedial measures subsequently put in place to avoid a repetition of the errors "

Actually the fourth order in that case that pertains to hallucinations; a first, June 5 Order is only mentioned in a second, June 18 order that does not call out what appears to be hallucinated references.

The district court independently found numerous inaccurate quotations and citations in Plaintiff's Opposition—misquoted language attributed to binding Third Circuit authority, Westlaw citations and dates that were incorrect or non-existent, and miscited pincites. The court concluded the pattern suggested the brief may have been prepared using generative AI without adequate verification and ordered counsel to show cause under Rule 11 and ethical rules. The court preserved the inaccuracies in the official opinion but removed links to invalid citations.

Plaintiff's counsel admitted that the opening memorandum and reply brief contained false AI-generated content. Counsel filed corrected memoranda; the court noted a Rule 11 violation but accepted the corrections and declined to impose sanctions or require additional briefing.

The Court preserved the invalid citations in the opinion as they are part of the record, admonished that fabricated or incorrect citations frustrate review and may lead to reprimand or sanction.

In the Order, the court stated: "A simple Google search would have shown the problems in some of Plaintiffs’ citations. In other instances, a quick search of the opinion Plaintiffs cited to would have revealed problems. Levying appropriate sanctions here promotes deterrence without being overly punitive, as contemplated by Rule 11(c)(4).

The Court notes that, rather than showing contrition, the Memorandum in Compliance strikes a defiant and deflective tone. (Docket No. 190). It also contains more of the errors that plagued Plaintiffs’ previous four filings. For example, in the “Legal Standard” section of the memorandum, Plaintiffs cite to two cases for the proposition that sanctions are an “extreme remedy” appropriate for instances of prejudice or bad faith. One case makes no mention of sanctions and neither contain the proffered quote Id. at 3. The Court finds it problematic that Plaintiffs responded to a show cause order to address the problem of multiple inaccurate citations by providing a response containing more erroneous citations."

Monetary sanction was decided in a subsequent decision dated 23 September 2025, available here.

Original Show Cause Order is here. Court noted that Counsel was still citing fabricated authorities, even though show cause proceedings are ongoing in parallel.

Case involved counsel sanctioned in Coomer v. Lindell. In the OSC Order, the court noted:

"The fact that Kachouroff and DeMaster corrected some of their misrepresentations before the court or the defendants identified them would ordinarily mitigate their conduct. But the reality is that Kachouroff and DeMaster acted only after the Colorado District Court in Coomer v. Lindell noted similar misconduct. That so many misrepresentations persist supports the inference that counsel’s conduct was not mere negligence but an intentional effort to mislead the court."

In her response to the OSC (available here), Counsel disclosed the Westlaw tools she had used.

"The Court respectfully proposes that the time may be near for an exception to the Erickson liberal-construction rule, where a pro se individual relies on AI to draft pleadings and thus blurs the line between what is a good faith pro se assertion of an actionable claim and what is a computer-generated morass that only serves to waste court time and resources."