In re Marla C. Martin (N.D. Illinois (Bankruptcy)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Sanction of $5,500 and mandatory AI education
Generated fake case citations used in a legal brief, misleading the court and opposing parties.
- Company involved
- Semrad
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
1 source article · read the reporting →
Morgan & Morgan lawyers cite fictional cases generated by AI chatbot
Lawyers at Morgan & Morgan filed a legal brief in a case against Walmart that cited nine cases, eight of which were entirely fictional. The firm admitted that an AI chatbot had generated the non-existent cases. Morgan & Morgan apologised for the error.
- Company involved
- Morgan & Morgan
10 source articles · read the reporting →
Woody Nora v. M & A Transport, Inc., et al. (E.D. Louisiana): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction; 1…
The AI tool generated fictitious case law citations that were included in a court filing, affecting the plaintiff and the court.
- AI system involved
- Westlaw Precision
1 source article · read the reporting →
Bunce v. Visual Technology Innovations (2) (E.D. Pennsylvania): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction, Additional CLE
The AI generated fabricated legal citations in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Mr. Rajan
1 source article · read the reporting →
Anonymous Spanish Lawyer (Tribunal Constitucional): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Formal Reprimand (Apercibimiento) + Referral to Barcelona Bar for Disc
The AI system generated hallucinated content that was submitted in a court filing, potentially misleading the court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Myeesha Parker v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (W.D. Washington): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Fine, Adverse Costs Order, Bar Referral
The lawyer submitted AI-generated court documents containing false citations and quotes, harming his client's discrimination case.
- AI system involved
- Callidus AI
1 source article · read the reporting →
Sullivan & Cromwell apologises for AI hallucinations in court filing
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.
- Company involved
- Sullivan & Cromwell
3 source articles · read the reporting →
Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp (E.D. New York): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary sanction; public reprimand; order to serve…
The AI generated fake case citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Hovsepyan Law Group, PC
- AI system involved
- ChatOn
1 source article · read the reporting →
Joel A. Rivera v. Triad Properties Corporation, et al. (N.D. Alabama): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Public Reprimand; Disqualification; Bar…
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were presented to the court, affecting the defendants and the judicial process.
- Company involved
- Burrill Watkins LLC
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
1 source article · read the reporting →
Kalala v. Coopérative d'habitation La Fraternité Micheloise (CS Québec): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction
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 →
Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (CA Oregon): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction
The AI system generated fabricated case citations and quotations that were included in a legal brief, leading to a monetary sanction against the lawyer.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The People v. Raziel Ruiz Alvarez (CA California): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Published order; monetary sanction payable by Counsel…
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were included in a court filing, affecting the defendant's legal representation and the court's resources.
- Company involved
- Attorney Siddell
1 source article · read the reporting →
Ramirez v. Humala (E.D. New York): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary sanction jointly imposed on counsel and firm; order…
The AI generated nonexistent case citations that were filed in court, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
CanLII sues Caseway AI for scraping legal database
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.
- Company involved
- Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII)
- AI system involved
- Caseway
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Russell v. Mells (CA Florida): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Bar Referral
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 →
Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025 (T.S.X. Galicia): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Bar Referral
The AI generated false legal citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and potentially harming the client's case.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Michael L. Ruiz v. Magellan Financial & Insurance Services (2) (D. Arizona): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Formal public reprimand
AI-hallucinated fake quotations were included in court filings submitted by counsel Elizabeth Tate, misleading the court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Landberg v City of New York (CA NY (2d)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction
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 →
Aguilar v. The Crawford Group, Inc. (D. Massachusetts): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Adverse Costs Order; Pro hac vice status…
The AI generated fake legal citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Lindemann Law Firm
1 source article · read the reporting →
Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co. (N.D. Georgia): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanctions; CLE
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 →
Barteca Holdings v. Tacobarn (D. Connecticut): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction; Bar Referral
The attorney filed a court document containing AI-hallucinated legal authorities, misleading the court and opposing party.
- Company involved
- Hilary Miller
1 source article · read the reporting →
McCormick v. Texakoma Financial (E.D. Texas): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Public Reprimand; Monetary Sanction; Firmwide citation review; CLE
The AI generated fictitious legal citations and quotes that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Ginsburg Law Group, P.C.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Thomas Raynard James v. Detective Kevin Conley, et al. (S.D. Florida): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Bar Referral
AI generated hallucinated content in a court filing, affecting the legal process and the lawyers who filed it.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. (2) (W.D. Washington): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Expert Brief excluded/struck
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 →