AI Hallucination Cases

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.

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.