AI Hallucination Cases

"The appearance of hallucinated citations in briefs generated from AI is no longer in its nascent stage. Regrettably, the number and regularity with which courts have been faced with hallucinations in court filings continues to rise both in this country and abroad. See Damien Charlotin, AI Hallucination Cases, (Aug. 6, 2025)https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/ (database tracking legal decisions “in caseswhere generative AI produced hallucinated content,” evidencing 255 cases to date) (hereinafter “Charlotin Database”).

[...]

By far, the majority of courts impose sanctions upon the offending lawyer for this sort of conduct and warnings or reprimands have been meted out in cases typically involving pro se litigants. See Charlotin Database, supra. However, there are circumstances where, in the Court’s discretion, monetary sanctions have not been imposed notwithstanding the violation of Rule 11."

Melvin Graham-Jackson, a pro se litigant, filed an appeal with false legal citations in his briefs, citing non-existent legal authorities and unrelated cases. The Court of Appeals identified this as a violation of Wisconsin's appellate rules. Despite being notified of these issues in the respondents' brief, Graham-Jackson continued to use false citations in his reply brief. The court imposed two sanctions: a $500 monetary penalty payable to the defendants to offset their legal expenses, and a requirement for Graham-Jackson to submit an affidavit in any future appeals certifying the accuracy and relevance of his legal citations.

The court imposed a monetary sanction of $1,000 on the appellate counsel and ordered a report to be sent to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC).

The appellate court found Husband's counsel made multiple misleading or incorrect citations and attributed quotations to cases that do not contain them. The court noted some citations used incorrect reporters that pointed to unrelated decisions, concluded the cited authorities did not support counsel's propositions (and in some instances contradicted them), forwarded the decision to the State Bar for possible ethical violations, and awarded costs to the prevailing party.

The appellate court dismissed the appeals due to lack of jurisdiction and ordered respondent's appellate Counsel to pay $1,000 in monetary sanctions for violating Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 by citing multiple cases that did not stand for the propositions of law for which they were cited. The court also ordered a copy of the decision to be sent to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

Counsel had previously admitted to using AI to prepare briefs in another case (in Re Boy) without thoroughly reviewing the work-product, leading to similar issues. The court found it reasonable to conclude AI was used in this case as well, although not explicitly admitted by Counsel.

The motion containing the fabrications had been withdrawn after the litigant was confronted, but the sanction was imposed nonetheless.

"37. The Court does not accept that there is a difference between the oral and written submissions. In fact, had there not been a request by the Plaintiff to respond, the Court would have ruled on the oral submission and such ruling could have significantly relied on the submissions of Defence Counsel. The implications are severe and serious when the Court cannot accept Counsel's assertion to be truthful and cases to be real. The risk of harm to the integrity of the judicial process is real and could bring the system into disrepute.

[...]

40. The Court does not accept Ms. Taylor's submission that the fictitious cases were verified before layover and that they were only used in speaking points and were "not intended to form the official record." I find there is no distinction between the speaking points, oral submissions and written submission. They are all submissions advanced by Counsel intended for the Court to rely on them in the process of decision making. The purpose of which was to guide a judgment in your client's favour. The attempt to draw such a distinction is one without merit and the Court rejects same without more."

"Were Advani a lawyer, the Court would consider imposing sanctions on her. But in view of the fact that she is not a lawyer and of the dismissal of this case, the Court declines to pursue the matter further and merely warns Advani that presentation of false citations, quotations, and holdings in the future may indeed result in the imposition of sanctions."

" According to father, “Welfare and Institutions Code § 350(b) states, ‘Except where otherwise provided by this code, the procedures for the trials or hearings shall be in accordance with that prescribed by law for civil cases.’ ” Section 350, subdivision (b) does not so provide, and we have been unable to verify the legal source for this quotation.3 With respect to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1013, subdivision (a), the statute addresses service by mail, facsimile and electronic service, etc., and provides, in relevant part, for an additional 10 calendar days “if either the place of mailing or the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States.” "

Footnote 3 then reads:

" Counsel is reminded that conduct of California attorneys is governed by the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. In particular, rule 3.3(a)(1) places a duty on counsel not to “knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal...,” as does Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (d). This duty is violated when counsel knowingly presents statutory authority to the court that does not exist. A person's “knowledge” under this rule may be inferred from the circumstances. (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.0.1(f).) Moreover, the inclusion of nonexistent legal authority may also be considered a “matter [that is] not reasonably material to the appeal's determination.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(2).) Failure to adhere to these standards of practice and rules may result in sanctions which themselves may be mandatorily reportable to the California State Bar. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (o)(3).) "

The Father, acting pro se, relied in written submissions on numerous authorities (particularly about ASD) that HHJ Bailey identified as not genuine and apparently AI-generated; the court treated this as part of poor litigation conduct and awarded costs against him.

After being ordered to show cause, Counsel submitted a brief that compounded the issue.

"The Court was dismayed to see that some of the discussion/analysis provided by Mr. Chinweze appeared to be from artificial intelligence generated case summaries which was indicated by the inclusion several times of the statement that "Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI." Another indication that the paragraphs of discussion/analysis were copied from another source or were generated by AI is that several paragraphs have superscript for footnotes, but no footnotes are found on any page of the Appendix."

The court then cited this database to highlight the growing problem of hallucinations in legal cases.

Counsel was ordered to pay 1,000 USD to the Lawyers Fund for Client Protection, and he was referred to the bar authorities.

The civil contempt were later terminated and the accrued sanctions reduced to a money judgment. See here.

The court also encouraged, but did not require, Plaintiffs' counsel to complete a CLE course on LLMs and legal ethics.

Rather ironically, plaintiff was seeking to disqualify law firm Butler Snow (of Johnson v. Dunn fame) from the case.

"Deleman admits to using generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools while draftinghis filings and has filed certificates of use with the Court. (Doc. 29-2; Doc. 30-2; Doc. 31-3).During the Court’s July 23, 2025, hearing, Deleman appeared to be relying entirely on AIgenerated arguments and citations. The Court directly asked Deleman whether he read thecases he cited and he claimed he did. Given that Deleman did not appear to encounter anexplanation of the term “consideration” while preparing for the hearing, the Court is skepticalof this claim. The Court reminds Deleman that false representations to the Court may warrantsanction."

"Chandra’s self-represented status does not permit him to submit information blindly. Likeevery other person who appears before the court, he has an obligation to confirm that arguments andcase law submitted to the court are supported by existing law, and a failure to do so is sanctionable."

The court imposed a fine of 1 salário-mínimo for bad faith litigation and notified the OAB for potential professional sanctions.

Timothy J. Beall, a pro se litigant, admitted to using AI software to generate filings with fabricated citations. The court did not impose monetary sanctions but required Beall to include a written representation of citation accuracy in future filings. The court acknowledged the challenges faced by pro se litigants but emphasized the responsibility to ensure accurate legal citations.

In their Response, Counsel confessed to the use of AI tools in their Response to the OSC.

(As recounted by Above the Law, the law firm involved quickly deleted a recent post they made about using AI.)

In the Order, the judge prefaced her findings by noting that "Even in cases like this one, where lawyers who cite AI hallucinations accept responsibility and apologize profusely, much damage is done. The opposing party expends resources identifying and exposing the fabrication; the court spends time reviewing materials, holding hearings, deliberating about sanctions, and explaining its ruling; the substance of the case is delayed; and public confidence about the trustworthiness of legal proceedings may be diminished."

The court further reasoned that "At the threshold, the court rejects the invitation to consider that actual authorities stand for the proposition that the bogus authorities were offered to support. That is a stroke of pure luck for these lawyers, and one that did not remediate the waste and harm their misconduct wrought. Further, any sanctions discount on this basis would amplify the siren call of unverified AI for lawyers who are already confident in their legal conclusion. This court will have no part of that."

It added that: "Likewise, the court rejects the invitation to consider that the involved lawyers and firm have been deeply embarrassed in media reports. For many very good reasons, courts traditionally have not relied on the media to do the difficult work of professional discipline, and this court is not about to start."

In a letter, the defendant pointed out the errors in the Opinion - prompting the judge to withdraw it through a minute order, without offering a rationale.

The judge later issued a new opinion, without mentioning or addressing what had happened.

In a context of a congressional investigation, the Judge later explained what happened, and blamed the intern.

Counsel admitted his law clerk used AI tools and failed to verify the citations. The court imposed a $2,500 monetary sanction, required completion of CLE in ethics/legal technology, and ordered service of the sanction order to the plaintiff.

The pro se litigant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which was dismissed with prejudice due to his repeated violations of court rules, including citing non-existent legal authorities and hallucinated cases. The court found that Zajradhara's filings were replete with fabricated citations, such as non-existent cases and misrepresented precedents. Despite being warned, plaintiff continued to submit documents with false legal references and engaged in unprofessional conduct, including personal attacks against opposing counsel and court staff. As a result, the court declared him a vexatious litigant, restricting his ability to file future litigation without express permission from the Chief Justice or Presiding Judge. No monetary penalty was imposed due to his financial circumstances.

" Further, the court is aware that relator's brief includes citations to non-existent cases. Relator is put on notice that she may face sanctions in the future for citing false caselaw. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.11(a) (“On motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may--after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond--impose just sanctions on a party or attorney who is not acting in good faith as indicated by any of the following... filing a petition that is clearly groundless.”) "

Counsel was sanctioned for citing eight nonexistent cases in briefs filed on behalf of his client, in an appeal concerning the termination of parental rights. The court found that Counsel violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 by submitting fictitious case citations generated by AI without verification. As a result, he was ordered to disgorge $6,925.62 received for his work on the appeal and pay an additional $1,000 in monetary sanctions. The court also directed that a copy of the opinion be sent to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

Story here, including a link to the original order full of hallucinations.

Judge did not explain why he withdrew the original order and replaced it with a new one, prompting counsel to move for a preservation of the record and an explanation (motion).

The judge dismissed the motion on 1 August 2025, stating: "The original version of that Order contained clerical errors referencing improper parties and factual allegations. The Court promptly corrected those errors and issued an Amended and Corrected TRO on the docket. [...] The Court corrected the record, notified the parties, and the corrected TRO is the controlling order. No further explanation is warranted."

In the context of a subsequent congressional investigation, the judge explained what happened, and blamed his law clerk.

"The first reason I issue sanctions stems from [Counsel]'s claim of ignorance—he asserts he didn't know the use of AI in general and ChatGPT in particular could result in citations to fake cases. Mr. Nield disputes the court's statement in Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc. (D. Wyo. 2025) that it is "well-known in the legal community that AI resources generate fake cases." Indeed, [Counsel] aggressively chides that assertion, positing that "in making that statement, the Wadsworth court cited no study, law school journal article, survey of attorneys, or any source to support this blanket conclusion."

I find [Counsel]'s position troubling. At this point, to be blunt, any lawyer unaware that using generative AI platforms to do legal research is playing with fire is living in a cloud."

[...]

"If anything, [Counsel]’s alleged lack of knowledge of ChatGPT’s shortcomings leads me to do what courts have been doing with increasing frequency: announce loudly and clearly (so that everyone hears and understands) that lawyers blindly relying on generative AI and citing fake cases are violating Bankruptcy Rule 9011 and will be sanctioned"