AI Hallucination Cases

The court issued an Order to Show Cause, and the plaintiff's Counsel acknowledged responsibility but did not explicitly admit to using AI. The court determined that the counsel violated Rule 11(b)(2) by failing to verify the accuracy of the citations and imposed several sanctions:

• "The pro hac vice status of Counsel shall be revoked and Counsel will be removed from this case;
• Plaintiff’s Opening Brief shall be stricken;
• Counsel will be ordered to promptly serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff, who will in turn be afforded time to engage new counsel or proceed as a self-represented litigant;
• Counsel will be ordered to write a letter to the three Judges to whom she attributed fictitious cases, [...], notifying them of her use of fake cases with their respective names attached;
• Counsel will be ordered to transmit a copy of this Order to every Judge who presides over any case in which Counsel is attorney of record; and
• The Clerk of Court’s Office will be directed to serve a copy of this Order on the Washington State Bar Association, of which Counsel is a member. If Counsel is a member of any other state’s bar, she shall serve a copy of this Order on that state’s bar office."

The court imposed sanctions under Rule 11, requiring Mr. Owoc to complete 10 hours of community service and to certify the accuracy of legal citations in future filings if AI is used. No monetary penalty was imposed.

"Second, the protester's explanation--that it was “manual mismatches in secondary summaries” that caused the citation errors (Protester's Resp., Aug. 8, 2025, at 1)--does not meaningfully explain the number of citation errors in the protester's filings. Indeed, Oready's patently erroneous citations are far removed from mere typographical or scrivener's errors, and instead, bear the hallmarks of the use of a large-language model or other artificial intelligence (AI) without adequate verification that the generated results were accurate. "

" We have the authority to sanction Wife under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) for failure to comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(c). See Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 399 So. 3d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). However, we decline to do so. Our decision is tempered by the fact that Wife is defending a judgment on appeal in an unrepresented capacity, Husband has not sought the imposition of sanctions, and Wife has not brought any other meritless or frivolous filings in this Court. See id. at 1187–88; Al-Hamim, 564 P.3d at 1125–26. Instead, we admonish Wife for her counterfeit brief and warn her that the Court will not regard similar infractions as mildly in the future. "

"The appearance of hallucinated citations in briefs generated from AI is no longer in its nascent stage. Regrettably, the number and regularity with which courts have been faced with hallucinations in court filings continues to rise both in this country and abroad. See Damien Charlotin, AI Hallucination Cases, (Aug. 6, 2025)https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/ (database tracking legal decisions “in caseswhere generative AI produced hallucinated content,” evidencing 255 cases to date) (hereinafter “Charlotin Database”).

[...]

By far, the majority of courts impose sanctions upon the offending lawyer for this sort of conduct and warnings or reprimands have been meted out in cases typically involving pro se litigants. See Charlotin Database, supra. However, there are circumstances where, in the Court’s discretion, monetary sanctions have not been imposed notwithstanding the violation of Rule 11."

Melvin Graham-Jackson, a pro se litigant, filed an appeal with false legal citations in his briefs, citing non-existent legal authorities and unrelated cases. The Court of Appeals identified this as a violation of Wisconsin's appellate rules. Despite being notified of these issues in the respondents' brief, Graham-Jackson continued to use false citations in his reply brief. The court imposed two sanctions: a $500 monetary penalty payable to the defendants to offset their legal expenses, and a requirement for Graham-Jackson to submit an affidavit in any future appeals certifying the accuracy and relevance of his legal citations.

The court imposed a monetary sanction of $1,000 on the appellate counsel and ordered a report to be sent to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC).

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.

"Were Advani a lawyer, the Court would consider imposing sanctions on her. But in view of the fact that she is not a lawyer and of the dismissal of this case, the Court declines to pursue the matter further and merely warns Advani that presentation of false citations, quotations, and holdings in the future may indeed result in the imposition of sanctions."

" 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).) "

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 debtor, Ryan Lashon Ford, appeared pro se in a bankruptcy case and was found in civil contempt for failing to comply with court orders. The debtor cited non-existent legal authorities, such as 15 U.S.C. § 114, which the court identified as fabricated citations.

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.

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

"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."

"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."

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.

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."

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.

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.

Case involved counsel sanctioned in Coomer v. Lindell. The court here 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, Counsel disclosed the Westlaw tools she had used.

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).