AI Hallucination Cases

"Judges and commentators continue to warn lawyers about the risks of artificial intelligence shortcuts. We today address a more fundamental concern: lack of diligence and supervision of less experienced lawyers who can fairly expect supervision. The lawyers disregarded basic fundamental understandings learned in law school about the need to ensure the case citations presented to judges support what lawyers say they do. Counsel fell far short of this fundamental obligation warranting monetary sanctions against the New York co-counsel and non-monetary sanctions against both the New York co-counsel and her local Philadelphia co-counsel.

Attorneys are again forewarned. Judges and their talented lawyers in Chambers scrutinize memoranda. Submissions containing unverified authority divert limited resources from other litigants who rely on their advocates’ careful research, accurate citation, and disciplined advocacy. These sanctions serve as a reminder the attorney’s oath of admission demands no less."

See story here and here.

"12) The Al tool possibly used was sophisticated enough to include pinpoint citations to precedential Third Circuit authority.
13) Fortunately for Boehm , the cases cited in his motion are very real decisions by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
14) Unfortunately for Boehm, these cases are misrepresented in his motion and his motion also contains false quotations from these opinions."

Original Show Cause Order is here.

The Court observed that several authorities cited in the Kogers' pro se filings do not exist and appeared to be fabricated (noting possible use of AI), warned of Rule 9011 implications, and treated the filings as part of an abusive litigation strategy warranting dismissal and a one-year filing bar.

The court later declined to reconsider its sanction (see here).

"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."