AI Hallucination Cases

Plaintiff's opposition brief cited numerous nonexistent cases. Defendant identified the fabricated citations in its reply; plaintiff admitted reliance on an AI-based drafting tool and apologized. The court confirmed several cited cases do not exist but declined to pursue Rule 11 sanctions, finding apology, mitigation, and proportionality concerns.

The Court identified multiple instances where counsel cited nonexistent cases and misquoted Cal. Civ. Code § 988(c). The Court admonished counsel, noted corrections in later briefing, and declined to credit the arguments based on the erroneous citations. No sanctions were imposed.

Morehouse replied that Warfield's filings relied on incorrect and nonexistent case citations; the Court noted that allegation but did not impose sanctions and dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court identified that Plaintiff relied on a nonexistent case citation and noted the citation had been previously flagged in the record.

Rather amazingly, plaintiff asked and was granted leave to file a "Case Law Verification Index" that contained further hallucinations.

The plaintiff, who is a lawyer , filed a claim for damages against Ryanair and included citations to several judgments to support his arguments. It was discovered that the plaintiff had used artificial intelligence to search for these judgments and/or draft the claim , and the cited cases "do not exist". The judge strongly condemned this conduct, stating it was improper and that the plaintiff's excuse for filing in haste was not acceptable. The non-existent citations were disregarded, and the court explicitly denied the plaintiff an award of costs (despite partially winning the claim) as a direct result of this conduct.

See report here.

Relator admitted her petition contained citation errors and hallucinated cases after relying on inadequate assistance; court denied leave to amend and dismissed the writs.

Order to show cause is here. Counsel was eventually ordered to pay 10,000 USD to opposing counsel (see here).

Debtor cited a case the court could not locate; the court noted the citation appears incorrect and may be an AI "hallucination," and referenced other decisions sanctioning reliance on fabricated AI-generated cases.

In an earlier Report and Reccomendations, the court found that significant portions of the plaintiff's filings copied from an AI program included citations to cases that could not be identified in Westlaw and an apparent AI-generated medical report; the court struck the filings and instructed compliance with Rule 11 and practice standards.

The court observed that Mother's briefs included many cited authorities that do not exist and that one statute she cited was not on point. Mother admitted using Chat GPT to prepare pleadings. The court affirmed the trial court's orders and warned litigants to verify AI-generated citations.

The appellant admitted using generative AI to prepare her Amended Grounds of Appeal. The Appeal Panel and respondent identified numerous incorrect or inapplicable citations and legal propositions generated by AI; the panel noted the appellant failed to verify those citations contrary to NCAT Procedural Direction 7 and treated the Amended Grounds as unreliable in parts when assessing whether questions of law were raised.