Incidents gathered from public reporting around the world. Each one links to the articles it came from. None of it is a finding that anyone broke the law.
Reports people file about their own experience are not shown here and never will be without their agreement. Tell us what happened to you.
68 incidents closest to “CoCounsel Essentials” · matched on meaning · public reporting
The AI system generated hallucinated content that was submitted in a court filing, potentially misleading the court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The lawyer submitted AI-generated court documents containing false citations and quotes, harming his client's discrimination case.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Sullivan & Cromwell, an elite Wall Street law firm, used an AI tool to help draft a court filing in the Prince Group case. The filing contained inaccurate citations and misquoted the US bankruptcy code due to AI hallucinations. The errors were uncovered by opposing counsel Boies Schiller Flexner, and the firm apologised to the judge and filed a corrected version. The firm stated that its AI policies were not followed and its review process failed to catch the mistakes.
3 source articles · read the reporting →
The AI generated fake case citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI system generated hallucinated legal citations in court filings, causing the court to strike the briefs of both plaintiff and defendant.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fabricated case law that was included in a court filing, misleading the court and resulting in sanctions against the litigant.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI system generated fictitious legal citations in a summary judgment motion, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Titus Henderson, a prisoner, filed a civil rights lawsuit against COMPAS and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on July 16, 2018. The lawsuit alleges discrimination related to the use of the COMPAS risk assessment tool. The case is ongoing.
6 source articles · read the reporting →
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were included in a court filing, affecting the defendant's legal representation and the court's resources.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated nonexistent case citations that were filed in court, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) has filed a lawsuit in British Columbia Supreme Court against Caseway AI, alleging that the company's AI chatbot scraped approximately 3.5 million records from CanLII's database in bulk, violating its terms of service and copyright. CanLII claims it adds value to public court records through hyperlinks and corrections, which it says constitute protected copyrighted work. Caseway AI argues the information is public and accessible elsewhere, and that it did not use CanLII's enhancements. The lawsuit was settled in March 2026, with terms undisclosed.
5 source articles · read the reporting →
AI generated fabricated case law citations that were included in a court filing, potentially misleading the court in Russell v. Mells.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI-generated fictitious citation was submitted in a motion to unseal, affecting the defendant's legal proceedings.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fabricated case law and quotes that were included in a court filing, affecting the plaintiffs and the judicial process.
1 source article · read the reporting →
AI-generated fake legal citations were included in a court filing, resulting in monetary sanctions against the attorney and his law firm.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fake legal citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The court imposed monetary sanctions and continuing legal education requirements on plaintiff's counsel for using AI-generated fake legal authorities in a court filing.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The attorney filed a court document containing AI-hallucinated legal authorities, misleading the court and opposing party.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fictitious legal citations and quotes that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
AI generated hallucinated content in a court filing, affecting the legal process and the lawyers who filed it.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI-generated hallucinated citations in an expert report led to the exclusion of the expert and dismissal of the plaintiff's case.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The system generated fake legal citations that were included in a court filing, potentially misleading the court and prejudicing the client's case.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated false legal citations and quotations in an appellate brief, misleading the court and harming the client's immigration appeal.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated legal briefs containing fabricated citations, which were submitted to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
