AI Hallucination Cases

The appellate court dismissed the appeals due to lack of jurisdiction and ordered respondent's appellate Counsel to pay $1,000 in monetary sanctions for violating Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 by citing multiple cases that did not stand for the propositions of law for which they were cited. The court also ordered a copy of the decision to be sent to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

Counsel had previously admitted to using AI to prepare briefs in another case (in Re Boy) without thoroughly reviewing the work-product, leading to similar issues. The court found it reasonable to conclude AI was used in this case as well, although not explicitly admitted by Counsel.

The defendant, Marion Rewa, a self-represented litigant, submitted a factum containing non-existent legal citations and propositions, which were suspected to be generated by an AI tool. The court found that the factum included fabricated citations and legal principles that did not exist, which is a serious issue as it misleads the court. The court noted that this was not the first instance of such behavior by Rewa:

"[50] Third, this is second time that Mr. Rewa resorted to the use of fictitious citations. Mr. Rewafiled a factum containing fictitious in 2024 in support of his motion on the Privacy ProtocolSubmissions. At that time, the cases were so obviously not helpful, they were simplyignored, without further thought about the source of any discrepancies. Perhaps, not havingbeen reprimanded at the time, Mr. Rewa thought he could try again, with impunity."

As a result, the motion was adjourned with costs awarded to Halton on a substantial indemnity basis, allowing Rewa to amend his submissions. The court emphasized the importance of verifying legal authorities and warned against future misconduct.

" According to father, “Welfare and Institutions Code § 350(b) states, ‘Except where otherwise provided by this code, the procedures for the trials or hearings shall be in accordance with that prescribed by law for civil cases.’ ” Section 350, subdivision (b) does not so provide, and we have been unable to verify the legal source for this quotation.3 With respect to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1013, subdivision (a), the statute addresses service by mail, facsimile and electronic service, etc., and provides, in relevant part, for an additional 10 calendar days “if either the place of mailing or the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States.” "

Footnote 3 then reads:

" Counsel is reminded that conduct of California attorneys is governed by the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. In particular, rule 3.3(a)(1) places a duty on counsel not to “knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal...,” as does Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (d). This duty is violated when counsel knowingly presents statutory authority to the court that does not exist. A person's “knowledge” under this rule may be inferred from the circumstances. (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.0.1(f).) Moreover, the inclusion of nonexistent legal authority may also be considered a “matter [that is] not reasonably material to the appeal's determination.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(2).) Failure to adhere to these standards of practice and rules may result in sanctions which themselves may be mandatorily reportable to the California State Bar. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (o)(3).) "

"The Debtor's failure to provide additional information related to her financial accounts, as is required by the Court Orders and by federal law, and her enormous pleadings with miscited law prohibit this case from moving forward in a timely manner. Therefore, the Court must act to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and impose sanctions to address this bad-faith conduct that is delaying and disrupting the progress of this case. "

After being ordered to show cause, Counsel submitted a brief that compounded the issue.

"The Court was dismayed to see that some of the discussion/analysis provided by Mr. Chinweze appeared to be from artificial intelligence generated case summaries which was indicated by the inclusion several times of the statement that "Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI." Another indication that the paragraphs of discussion/analysis were copied from another source or were generated by AI is that several paragraphs have superscript for footnotes, but no footnotes are found on any page of the Appendix."

The court then cited this database to highlight the growing problem of hallucinations in legal cases.

Counsel was ordered to pay 1,000 USD to the Lawyers Fund for Client Protection, and he was referred to the bar authorities.

The court also encouraged, but did not require, Plaintiffs' counsel to complete a CLE course on LLMs and legal ethics.

In a response, counsel identified the tools used to write the faulty brief, suggested he would withdraw from the case, and offered to "self-report this incident and offer corrective measures" to the bar authorities.

"Chandra’s self-represented status does not permit him to submit information blindly. Likeevery other person who appears before the court, he has an obligation to confirm that arguments andcase law submitted to the court are supported by existing law, and a failure to do so is sanctionable."

"Deleman admits to using generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools while draftinghis filings and has filed certificates of use with the Court. (Doc. 29-2; Doc. 30-2; Doc. 31-3).During the Court’s July 23, 2025, hearing, Deleman appeared to be relying entirely on AIgenerated arguments and citations. The Court directly asked Deleman whether he read thecases he cited and he claimed he did. Given that Deleman did not appear to encounter anexplanation of the term “consideration” while preparing for the hearing, the Court is skepticalof this claim. The Court reminds Deleman that false representations to the Court may warrantsanction."

Rather ironically, plaintiff was seeking to disqualify law firm Butler Snow (of Johnson v. Dunn fame) from the case.

Timothy J. Beall, a pro se litigant, admitted to using AI software to generate filings with fabricated citations. The court did not impose monetary sanctions but required Beall to include a written representation of citation accuracy in future filings. The court acknowledged the challenges faced by pro se litigants but emphasized the responsibility to ensure accurate legal citations.

Counsel admitted his law clerk used AI tools and failed to verify the citations. The court imposed a $2,500 monetary sanction, required completion of CLE in ethics/legal technology, and ordered service of the sanction order to the plaintiff.

In a letter, the defendant pointed out the errors in the Opinion - prompting the judge to withdraw it through a minute order, without offering a rationale.

In their Response, Counsel confessed to the use of AI tools in their Response to the OSC.

(As recounted by Above the Law, the law firm involved quickly deleted a recent post they made about using AI.)

In the Order, the judge prefaced her findings by noting that "Even in cases like this one, where lawyers who cite AI hallucinations accept responsibility and apologize profusely, much damage is done. The opposing party expends resources identifying and exposing the fabrication; the court spends time reviewing materials, holding hearings, deliberating about sanctions, and explaining its ruling; the substance of the case is delayed; and public confidence about the trustworthiness of legal proceedings may be diminished."

The court further reasoned that "At the threshold, the court rejects the invitation to consider that actual authorities stand for the proposition that the bogus authorities were offered to support. That is a stroke of pure luck for these lawyers, and one that did not remediate the waste and harm their misconduct wrought. Further, any sanctions discount on this basis would amplify the siren call of unverified AI for lawyers who are already confident in their legal conclusion. This court will have no part of that."

It added that: "Likewise, the court rejects the invitation to consider that the involved lawyers and firm have been deeply embarrassed in media reports. For many very good reasons, courts traditionally have not relied on the media to do the difficult work of professional discipline, and this court is not about to start."

The pro se litigant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which was dismissed with prejudice due to his repeated violations of court rules, including citing non-existent legal authorities and hallucinated cases. The court found that Zajradhara's filings were replete with fabricated citations, such as non-existent cases and misrepresented precedents. Despite being warned, plaintiff continued to submit documents with false legal references and engaged in unprofessional conduct, including personal attacks against opposing counsel and court staff. As a result, the court declared him a vexatious litigant, restricting his ability to file future litigation without express permission from the Chief Justice or Presiding Judge. No monetary penalty was imposed due to his financial circumstances.

" Further, the court is aware that relator's brief includes citations to non-existent cases. Relator is put on notice that she may face sanctions in the future for citing false caselaw. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.11(a) (“On motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may--after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond--impose just sanctions on a party or attorney who is not acting in good faith as indicated by any of the following... filing a petition that is clearly groundless.”) "

Counsel was sanctioned for citing eight nonexistent cases in briefs filed on behalf of his client, in an appeal concerning the termination of parental rights. The court found that Counsel violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 by submitting fictitious case citations generated by AI without verification. As a result, he was ordered to disgorge $6,925.62 received for his work on the appeal and pay an additional $1,000 in monetary sanctions. The court also directed that a copy of the opinion be sent to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

Story here, including a link to the original order full of hallucinations.

Judge did not explain why he withdrew the original order and replaced it with a new one, prompting counsel to move for a preservation of the record and an explanation (motion).

"The first reason I issue sanctions stems from [Counsel]'s claim of ignorance—he asserts he didn't know the use of AI in general and ChatGPT in particular could result in citations to fake cases. Mr. Nield disputes the court's statement in Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc. (D. Wyo. 2025) that it is "well-known in the legal community that AI resources generate fake cases." Indeed, [Counsel] aggressively chides that assertion, positing that "in making that statement, the Wadsworth court cited no study, law school journal article, survey of attorneys, or any source to support this blanket conclusion."

I find [Counsel]'s position troubling. At this point, to be blunt, any lawyer unaware that using generative AI platforms to do legal research is playing with fire is living in a cloud."

[...]

"If anything, [Counsel]’s alleged lack of knowledge of ChatGPT’s shortcomings leads me to do what courts have been doing with increasing frequency: announce loudly and clearly (so that everyone hears and understands) that lawyers blindly relying on generative AI and citing fake cases are violating Bankruptcy Rule 9011 and will be sanctioned"

Counsel submitted a response to an Order to Show Cause that included a false quote attributed to none other than Mata v. Avianca, a case about hallucinations.

According to local press, counsel was called to a special hearing to discuss the citation to an hallucinated authority.

Later on, opposing counsel scoured the full docket and found multiple instances of hallucinations, including for routine, uncontested motions. On July 29, 2025, they filed for sanctions (motion available here; see story here).

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.

In May, the court asked Counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for filing briefs with hallucinations - especially since they continued filing hallucinated submissions after being warned about it.

In their Answer, Counsel revealed that "specific citations and quotes in question were inadvertently derived from internal draft text prepared using generative AI research tools designed to expedite legal research and brief drafting".

In the Order, the court noted that Counsel "was not candid to the Court when confronted about his use of AI, stating that some of these documents were “prepared under time constraints,” when he had nearly two more weeks before the deadline to submit his responses." The judge was also unimpressed by Counsel's attempt to shift the blame to a paralegal.

Plaintiff's Counsel cited nine non-existent cases in a response to a motion to dismiss, which were generated using AI software. The court found this to be a violation of Rule 11, as the citations were not checked for accuracy. Counsel admitted the error, apologized, and explained the circumstances, including staff transitions and the use of AI. The court imposed a $1000 sanction, required Mr. Braddy to attend a CLE course on AI ethics, and ordered reimbursement of Defendant's attorney fees and costs.

The Respondent, a self-represented litigant, used generative AI tools for drafting and preliminary research, leading to the citation of a non-existent case, 'Fontaine v Canada, 2004 FC 1777', in his Motion Record. The Court found this to be a fabricated citation, and the (allegedly) intended citation pointed to an irrelevant case.

The court further pointed out that the Respondent had already been caught fabricating citations in a previous proceeding. Despite acknowledging use of AI, the respondent had also failed to provide the declaration on this point required by the AI Practice Direction. The Court ordered the removal of the Motion Record from the file. Costs of $500 CAD were awarded to the Applicant.

Counsel tried to blame the software he used, as well as an intern; court was unimpressed

Counsel confessed having Claude Sonnet 4 to draft a legal submission, which included fabricated quotations from legal authorities. Counsel said he was pressed by time.

After holding that there is "no reason to distinguish between the submission of fabricated cases and the submission of fabricated quotations from real cases. In both postures, the attorney seeks to persuade the Court using legal authority that does not exist", the court held that Mr. Desmarais had violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to verify the accuracy of the AI-generated content. Counsel was found to have acted in subjective bad faith, as he was aware of the potential for AI to hallucinate legal citations and failed to take corrective action even after the government pointed out the errors.

The court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction and required Counsel to complete a CLE course on the ethical use of AI in legal practice and notify his client of the issue.

In the case of Smith v. Gamble, the appellant, Karen A. Gamble nka Smith, moved to strike the appellee brief filed by Gary C. Gamble III, alleging that several case citations were fraudulent, as they were either inaccurate, non-existent, or completely false. The court directed the appellee, Father, to provide copies of the cited cases, which he failed to do. Consequently, the court found that Father used nonexistent cases and inappropriate citations, likely generated by an AI tool, to support his arguments. The court denied the motion to strike the brief but granted sanctions against Father for the time and expense incurred by Mother in uncovering the fraudulent citations. The matter was referred to a magistrate to determine the appropriate amount of sanctions.

Prior Order to Show Cause available here.

After reviewing - and dismissing - the factual allegations made by Counsel, and noting that they had submitted errata in parallel cases (dealing with other fabricated citations), the court swiftly concluded that they "have violated Rule 11 because they were not reasonable in certifying that the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions contained in Defendants’ Opposition to Motion in Limine [Doc. 283] were warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law."

Both counsel were sanctioned with a 3,000 USD fine, payable to the court.

In the case AQ v. BW, the applicant AQ claimed damages for the non-consensual sharing of an intimate image by the respondent BW. Both parties were self-represented. The tribunal found that BW shared an intimate image of AQ without consent, violating the Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA). BW attempted to defend their actions by citing a fabricated version of CRTA section 92, which was identified as a hallucination likely generated by artificial intelligence. Judge held:

"16. I have considered my obligation to give sufficient reasons. I do not consider that obligation to include responding to arguments concocted by artificial intelligence that have no basis in law. I accept that artificial intelligence can be a useful tool to help people find the right language to present their arguments, if used properly. However, people who blindly use artificial intelligence often end up bombarding the CRT with endless legal arguments. They cannot reasonably expect the CRT to address them all. So, while I have reviewed all the parties’ materials and considered all their arguments, I have decided against addressing many of the issues they raise. If I do not address a particular argument in this decision, it is because the argument lacks any merit, is about something plainly irrelevant, or both."

The tribunal dismissed BW's defenses as baseless and awarded AQ $5,000 in damages and an additional $1,000 for time spent due to BW's submission of irrelevant evidence. The tribunal emphasized that arguments concocted by AI without legal basis would not be addressed.

Counsel in charge apologised to the Court in a letter (available here), explaining that he had failed to supervise the work of his subordinates.

"Further, these inaccuracies signal that Plaintiff's counsel may have used AI to assist in the drafting of Plaintiff's Response (or otherwise counsel produced exceptionally sloppy work). In this regard, this Court's Chambers Rules include “Disclosure and Certification Requirements” for use of “Generative Artificial Intelligence” and expressly provide that an attorney or party must disclose in any document to be filed with the Court “that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used” and to “certify in the document that the person has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted by generative AI, including all citations and legal authority.” See id.6 No such disclosure and certification has been made in this case. The Court's Rules further provide that an attorney will be responsible for the contents of any documents prepared with generative AI, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the failure to make the disclosure and certification “may result in the imposition of sanctions.”"

"In a prior order, we struck portions of Walker's brief that included citations to nonexistent cases. We note that the arguments raised would not have changed the outcome of the appeal in any event. "

The court noted that:

"both Lehr-Guthrie's and McDonald's briefs are replete with errors in their citations to case authority, such as repeated citation errors, references to nonexistent quotes, and incorrect statements about the cases (for instance, as noted above, the two cases McDonald cited for a proposition relating to the duty of impartiality don't even reference that duty). This suggests to us that the briefs may have been drafted with the use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI). “[U]sing a GAI tool to draft a legal document can pose serious risks if the user does not thoroughly review the tool's output.” Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, 2024 COA 128, ¶ 32. Self-represented litigants must be particularly careful, as they “may not understand that a GAI tool may confidently respond to a query regarding a legal topic ‘even if the answer contains errors, hallucinations, falsehoods, or biases.’ ” Id. (citation omitted).4 We advise the parties that errors caused by GAI in future filings may result in sanctions. See id. at ¶ 41. "

The court warned that future errors caused by AI could result in sanctions.