AI Hallucination Cases

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.

Law firm explained what happened here. On October 28, 2025, the court declined to take any action in response to the motion for sanctions.

" 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 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,

Order to show cause is here.

"One week after filing its second motion for summary judgment, Liberty Mutual submitted a notice of errata identifying the erroneous Goodman and Chaudri citations and demonstrating legitimate citations to those cases. [ECF No. 50].3 While the Court acknowledges Liberty Mutual’s prompt notice disclosing the two most serious errors in its filing, the additional misquotations and mischaracterizations discussed above will not be disregarded. Liberty Mutual indicates that the errors were typographical and/or caused by vision impairment, but that explanation is simply not credible. The errors in Liberty Mutual’s filing are not ones in which a few letters or numbers were passed over or shuffled. Rather, the filing includes entire names, dates, court designations, and Westlaw citations that are completely off base, and various other inaccuracies cannot be explained by typographical or vision issues. Therefore, the Court will reserve its ruling on the motion for sanctions and will set a hearing requiring Liberty Mutual to show cause why it should not be sanctioned."

Folllowing a show cause order, Counsel admitted to having used the tool together with Google Search, and explained that, although he was aware of the issues with AI models like ChatGPT, he said he did not expect this tool to fall into the same issues.

The Court found Attorney James A. Johnson used Ghostwriter Legal to draft a motion that contained multiple fabricated case citations, misstated/false quotations attributed to authorities, and cited precedent that had been reversed by the Supreme Court. The Court found the conduct tantamount to bad faith and imposed sanctions under its inherent authority. Sanctions include an order to file, not under seal, this order "in any case in any court wherein he appears as counsel fortwelve (12) months after the date of this order."

The court noted prior fabricated citations in plaintiff's earlier briefing (for which counsel had already been sanctioned). In the current filing the court found no fabricated citations but identified inaccurate legal contentions—e.g., a rule statement claiming withholding ready-to-produce material while seeking extra time is sanctionable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)—which the court found unsupported and incorrect. The court suspected plaintiff used AI again, but simply removed the citations. The court admonished counsel to review AI-generated work and comply with Rule 11 but did not impose additional sanctions here.

Original Show Cause Order is here.

The grounds of appeal contained at least two non-existent authorities. The judge concluded the false citations likely arose from unchecked generative-AI drafting and directed the solicitor to show cause why conduct should not be referred to the SRA.

Show Cause Order is available here.

Court denied OSC/motion on procedural safe-harbor grounds but found defendants submitted miscited, non-existent, and inapposite authorities (and noted risk of AI-generated fake citations). Defendants accepted responsibility but no sanctions imposed.

"When criminal defense attorneys fail to comply with their ethical obligations, their conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system. It also damages their credibility and potentially impugns the validity of the arguments they make on behalf of their clients, calling into question their competency and ability to ensure defendants are provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Thus, criminal defense attorneys must make every effort to confirm that the legal citations they supply exist and accurately reflect the law for which they are cited. That did not happen here."

Counsel admitted he did not verify citations. The court imposed a $1,000 sanction payable personally by counsel, ordered 1 hour CLE on generative AI, and referred him to the Disciplinary Committee.

"This case adds yet another unfortunate chapter to the story of artificial intelligence misuse in the legal profession. Here, Defendants' counsel not only included an AI-hallucinated citation and quotations in the summary judgment brief that led to the filing of this motion for sanctions, but also included multiple new AIhallucinated citations and quotations in Defendants' brief opposing this motion. In other words, counsel relied upon unvetted AI—in his telling, via inadequately supervised colleagues—to defend his use of unvetted AI."

Story available here.

Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Errata admitting that erroneous citation and quotation errors in multiple briefs resulted from the attorney's use of generative AI. The Court refused to consider the amended briefs/errata for purposes of its decision and treated any propositions supported solely by the incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported. The Court declined to impose sanctions but warned the attorney that relying on AI without proper oversight can be sanctionable under the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct.

CC cited a fictitious AI-generated case in written submissions. The Defendant's counsel located the error, CC admitted the authority was AI-generated and did not exist, and the Court found CC acted improperly, ordering personal costs of $800.

The appellant's original factum contained references to seven cases that could not be located (six allegedly decisions of this Court). Respondent flagged the issue; appellant's counsel ultimately acknowledged a contractor-drafted factum and that a large language model may have been used. The Court allowed an amended factum and reserved costs, warning that use of LLM without verification may attract costs, contempt proceedings, or Law Society referral.

The district court independently found numerous inaccurate quotations and citations in Plaintiff's Opposition—misquoted language attributed to binding Third Circuit authority, Westlaw citations and dates that were incorrect or non-existent, and miscited pincites. The court concluded the pattern suggested the brief may have been prepared using generative AI without adequate verification and ordered counsel to show cause under Rule 11 and ethical rules. The court preserved the inaccuracies in the official opinion but removed links to invalid citations.

Story available here.

Plaintiff's counsel admitted that the opening memorandum and reply brief contained false AI-generated content. Counsel filed corrected memoranda; the court noted a Rule 11 violation but accepted the corrections and declined to impose sanctions or require additional briefing.

In the Order, the court stated: "A simple Google search would have shown the problems in some of Plaintiffs’ citations. In other instances, a quick search of the opinion Plaintiffs cited to would have revealed problems. Levying appropriate sanctions here promotes deterrence without being overly punitive, as contemplated by Rule 11(c)(4).

The Court notes that, rather than showing contrition, the Memorandum in Compliance strikes a defiant and deflective tone. (Docket No. 190). It also contains more of the errors that plagued Plaintiffs’ previous four filings. For example, in the “Legal Standard” section of the memorandum, Plaintiffs cite to two cases for the proposition that sanctions are an “extreme remedy” appropriate for instances of prejudice or bad faith. One case makes no mention of sanctions and neither contain the proffered quote Id. at 3. The Court finds it problematic that Plaintiffs responded to a show cause order to address the problem of multiple inaccurate citations by providing a response containing more erroneous citations."

Monetary sanction was decided in a subsequent decision dated 23 September 2025, available here.

Original Show Cause Order is here. Court noted that Counsel was still citing fabricated authorities, even though show cause proceedings are ongoing in parallel.

Case involved counsel sanctioned in Coomer v. Lindell. In the OSC Order, the court noted:

"The fact that Kachouroff and DeMaster corrected some of their misrepresentations before the court or the defendants identified them would ordinarily mitigate their conduct. But the reality is that Kachouroff and DeMaster acted only after the Colorado District Court in Coomer v. Lindell noted similar misconduct. That so many misrepresentations persist supports the inference that counsel’s conduct was not mere negligence but an intentional effort to mislead the court."

In her response to the OSC (available here), Counsel disclosed the Westlaw tools she had used.