AI Hallucination Cases

Party later filed for reconsideration, arguing that the judge had been biased; this failed (see here).

Lawyer later explained that he had "used Microsoft’s Copilot for its editing functions in an effort to review and improve the draft document by fixing grammar, spelling, and improving badly phrased sentences" - not for legal research.

On November 12, 2025, the court resolved the Show Cause proceedings without formal sanctions.

Motion for reconsideration was later dismissed, partly because of AI misuse behaviour (see here).

" Moreover, we take this opportunity to caution practitioners of this Commonwealth on the submission of briefs or citations without confirming their accuracy and the correctness of the resulting analysis. The abject failure to conduct due diligence when making arguments to the Court greatly impacts the profession and undermines confidence in the skills and knowledge necessary to practice as an attorney. Failure to verify substantive legal citations prior to submission to this Court is not only in derogation of the RAP, but also violates the attorney's ethical responsibilities. See Supreme Court Rule 3.130(1.1).

Mistakes occur. Oversights happen. Those types of inadvertent errors we could absolve. However, purposelessly submitting a brief to a Court of law without confirming that the cited case law even exists is an affront to the dignity of the Court system, the legal profession as a whole, the judiciary, the client, and the public at large."

The judge tested Microsoft M365 Copilot and found it produced fabricated Court of Appeal citations for Qdime and an incorrect citation for Gala Unity. The Tribunal concluded Mr Gurvits used AI-generated research without adequate verification; the AI outputs were rejected as unreliable. The Tribunal criticised the conduct but did not impose professional disciplinary sanctions; remedial orders in the case related to service charge and fee reimbursement.

The Board found over 70% of citations in Huffman's reply brief inaccurate, including fabricated cases, misattributed reporter citations, cases that did not support cited propositions, and incorrect or non-existent transcript/Rule 4 citations. Counsel admitted using AI to generate portions of the brief. The Board treated the motion as one for Rule 11-type sanctions and struck the reply brief; it emphasized attorneys' duty to verify AI-generated content.

The Court found 28 false or misleading citations across 11 pleadings (14 fabricated, 14 erroneous/misquoted). Mr. Howie admitted use of ChatGPT and failure to verify citations. The Court applied Rule 11(b) and its AI framework (verification, candor/correction, accountability) and imposed sanctions and restitution. Fines of 3,000, 2,000, and 1,000 USD on individual attorneys, plus opposing party's costs and fees,

The City argued—and the Court found—that the pro se plaintiff repeatedly cited nonexistent or inaccurately attributed caselaw likely generated by AI. The Court found these citations violated Rule 11, warned the plaintiff, and declined to award fees or impose sanctions. The court preserved the original incorrect citations in the opinion as part of the record.

The court was unable to locate one of the plaintiff's case citations and several quotations attributed to other cases; the court suspected portions of the filings were AI-generated and noted potential Rule 11 violations but did not impose sanctions.

Order to show cause is here.

Costs were awarded here.

"On September 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed his response to the court’s order to file copies of the cases he cited (#7). Therein, Plaintiff avers he took “concrete remedial steps” to cure the time wasted by his use of artificial-intelligence-hallucinated case citations, including “submission of the verified opinions as exhibits” (#7 at 2). Indeed, Plaintiff’s response stresses how he“obtained authentic copies” of those cases and “attached” them as exhibits. See (id.).

Plaintiff did not attach any exhibits to his response to this court’s order. The court is convinced that those two case citations are AI-hallucinated. Plaintiff’s insistence that they exist—and that he provided copies of them to this court—is bewildering."

(Not an hallucination per se, but worth adding to the database anyway.)