AI Hallucination Cases

AI Use

Jerry Thomas filed pro se pleadings citing at least ten fabricated cases. The citations appeared plausible but did not correspond to any real authorities. Despite opportunities to explain, Thomas gave vague excuses about "self-research" and "assumed reliability," without clarifying the sources - suggesting reliance on AI-generated content.

Hallucination Details

Ten fake case citations systematically inserted across filings

Fabricated authorities mimicked proper citation format but were unverifiable in any recognized database

The pattern mirrored known AI hallucination behaviors: fabricated authorities presented with apparent legitimacy

Ruling/Sanction

The Court dismissed the action with prejudice as a Rule 11 sanction. It emphasized that fake citations delay litigation, waste judicial resources, and erode public confidence. The Court explicitly invoked Mata v. Avianca for the broader dangers of AI hallucinations in litigation and found Thomas acted in bad faith by failing to properly explain the origin of the fabrications.

Key Judicial Reasoning

Citing fabricated cases (even if resulting from AI use or negligence) is sanctionable because it constitutes an improper purpose under Rule 11. Sanctions were deemed necessary to deter further abuses, with dismissal considered more appropriate than monetary penalties given the circumstances.

AI Use

Lancaster, filing objections to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, cited several fabricated case authorities. The Court noted the possibility of reliance on a generative AI tool and explicitly warned Lancaster about future misconduct.

Hallucination Details

Fabricated or mutant citations, including:

• Bazzi v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 961 F.3d 734 (6th Cir. 2020) — mutant citation blending two unrelated real cases
• Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 720 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 2013) — nonexistent
• Malliaras & Poulos, P.C. v. City of Center Line, 788 F.3d 876 (6th Cir. 2015) — nonexistent

Court highlighted that the majority of the cited cases in Lancaster’s objections were fake.

Ruling/Sanction

No immediate sanction imposed due to pro se status and lack of prior warnings. However, the Court issued a pointed warning that citing "made-up law" could lead to significant sanctions, either in that Court or any other court to which the case might be remanded.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The Court emphasized that unverified, fabricated legal citations undermine the judicial process and waste both judicial and litigant resources. Even without clear evidence of malicious intent, negligence in checking citations is sanctionable. Rule 11 duties apply fully to pro se litigants.

AI Use

The Court noted that the appellant's argument section appeared to have been drafted by AI based on telltale errors (nonexistent cases, jump-cites into wrong jurisdictions, illogical structure). A recent Texas CLE on AI usage was cited by the Court to explain the pattern.

Hallucination Details

Three fake cases cited. Brief also contained no citations to the record and was devoid of clear argumentation on the presented issues.

Ruling/Sanction

The Court declined to issue a show cause order or to refer counsel to the State Bar of Texas, despite noting similarities to Mata v. Avianca. However, it affirmed the trial court’s denial of habeas relief due to inadequate briefing, and explicitly warned about the dangers of using AI-generated content in legal submissions without human verification.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The Court held that even if AI contributed to the preparation of filings, attorneys must ensure accuracy, logical structure, and compliance with citation rules. Failure to meet these standards precludes appellate review under Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Courts are not obligated to "make an appellant’s arguments for him," especially where brief defects are gross.

AI Use

Counsel from Levidow, Levidow & Oberman used ChatGPT for legal research to oppose a motion to dismiss a personal injury claim against Avianca airlines, citing difficulty accessing relevant federal precedent through their limited research subscription.

Hallucination Details

The attorneys' submission included at least six completely non-existent judicial decisions, complete with fabricated quotes and internal citations. Examples cited by the court include Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., Shaboon v. Egyptair, Petersen v. Iran Air, Martinez v. Delta Airlines, Inc., Estate of Durden v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, and Miller v. United Airlines, Inc.. When challenged by opposing counsel and the court, the attorneys initially stood by the fake cases and even submitted purported copies of the opinions, which were also generated by ChatGPT and contained further bogus citations.

Ruling/Sanction

Judge P. Kevin Castel imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction jointly and severally on the two attorneys and their law firm. He also required them to send letters informing their client and each judge whose name was falsely used on the fabricated opinions about the situation.

Key Judicial Reasoning

Judge Castel found the attorneys acted in bad faith, emphasizing their "acts of conscious avoidance and false and misleading statements to the Court" after the issue was raised. The sanctions were imposed not merely for the initial error but for the failure in their gatekeeping roles and their decision to "double down" rather than promptly correcting the record. The opinion detailed the extensive harms caused by submitting fake opinions. This case is widely considered a landmark decision and is frequently cited in subsequent discussions and guidance.