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 “Everlaw AI Assistant” · matched on meaning · public reporting
Melissa Sims alleges her ex-boyfriend created AI-generated text messages that were used as evidence to revoke her bond, leading to her spending two days in jail. After eight months of legal proceedings, prosecutors dropped the bond violation charge, and she was acquitted of the related battery charge. The case highlights growing concerns about unverified AI evidence in courts.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Attorney Howe used Westlaw's CoCounsel AI to draft appellate briefs for a criminal defendant. The briefs contained fabricated quotations and misrepresented case holdings. The Sixth Circuit discovered the AI use from the file name and, upon investigation, found the citations false. Howe admitted he failed to adequately review the AI-generated content. The court denied compensation, appointed new counsel, and referred Howe for disciplinary proceedings.
1 source article · read the reporting →
In early 2025, a lawyer submitted a brief to the Norwegian Supreme Court in a civil case that contained laws and legislative history invented by an AI tool. Supreme Court staff discovered the non-existent sources during routine review. The court stated the lawyer had not checked the AI-generated sources before filing and raised the matter with the lawyer, but no sanctions were imposed. Høyesterett updated its attorney guide to require quality-checking of AI output.
1 source article · read the reporting →
In a defamation case in Johannesburg, lawyers for plaintiff Michelle Parker used ChatGPT to find supporting judgments, but the cases turned out to be entirely fictitious, generated by the AI's hallucination. The opposing counsel and law librarians could not locate the cited judgments, leading to the discovery that they were fabricated. The magistrate found no intent to mislead but ordered Parker to pay punitive costs, warning against relying on AI without verification.
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Heather Hersh, an appellate attorney, used generative AI to draft a reply brief in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case. The brief contained multiple fabricated legal quotations and inaccurate assertions. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Hersh failed to verify the AI-generated content and was not candid about her use of AI, imposing a $2,500 monetary sanction under FRAP 46(c) and inherent authority. The court emphasised that attorneys must verify AI outputs and remain honest with the court.
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Jeffrey Kotchka, representing himself in a probate appeal, used generative AI to draft his legal brief and submitted it without verifying the citations. The Arizona Court of Appeals found that six of eight citations were deficient, including two that referred to non-existent cases. The court sanctioned Kotchka by ordering him to pay the opposing party's attorney's fees incurred in addressing the fake citations, ruling that citing hallucinated cases is sanctionable regardless of intent. The court acknowledged AI's potential to assist self-represented litigants but emphasised the duty to verify all citations.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Zachariah Crabill, a Colorado lawyer, used ChatGPT to draft a legal motion in May 2023, citing case law that the AI had fabricated. He did not alert the court to the inaccuracies and initially blamed a legal intern. A judge suspended him for one year and one day for violating professional conduct rules, with the possibility of reducing the suspension after 90 days and two years of probation.
4 source articles · read the reporting →
In the case of R (Ayinde) v Haringey, a barrister and solicitors for the claimant cited five fake cases in judicial review grounds. The judge found that the lawyers had misled the court and made wasted costs orders of £2,000 each against the barrister and the solicitors. The article suggests the fake cases may have been generated by an AI bot, and the lawyers failed to verify them.
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Two US district judges admitted that rulings issued under their names contained fabricated elements due to staff use of artificial intelligence tools. Judge Julien Neals in New Jersey and Judge Henry Wingate in Mississippi disclosed the errors in letters to the Administrative Office of the US Courts. The admissions came in response to questions from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. The incidents have raised concerns about judicial scrutiny of documents.
2 source articles · read the reporting →
The High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands fined a lawyer €420 for including 48 false case citations generated by a general-purpose AI tool in an appeal brief. The court found the lawyer failed to verify the citations against official databases, breaching the duty of veracity and good faith. The lawyer admitted the facts and expressed remorse, leading to a reduced fine. The court also referred the matter to the local bar association for possible disciplinary action.
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Generated fake case citations used in a legal brief, misleading the court and opposing parties.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Chicago Tribune Company, LLC filed a lawsuit against Perplexity AI, Inc. in the Southern District of New York on December 4, 2025. The complaint alleges copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501. The case is assigned to Judge Loretta A. Preska.
5 source articles · read the reporting →
The AI tool generated fictitious case law citations that were included in a court filing, affecting the plaintiff and the court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated hallucinated legal citations that were filed in court, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fabricated legal citations in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna's congressional office used Claude, an AI chatbot, to spellcheck and grammar-check a summary of an amendment to the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. Screenshots of the summary circulated online because it still contained the text 'Claude responded:'. Luna initially said staff used AI to correct draft text and did not edit it, then clarified that AI was only used on the summary and that no legislation is drafted with AI. The incident drew public speculation about AI use in legislative work.
2 source articles · 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 →
Nippon Life Insurance Company of America filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT acted as an unlicensed attorney by advising a former disability claimant to reopen a settled case and drafting dozens of meritless motions. The insurer claims the AI's actions constitute unauthorized practice of law under Illinois statute and seeks $300,000 in compensatory damages. OpenAI has denied the allegations, calling the complaint meritless. The case is pending in federal court in Chicago.
2 source articles · 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 system generated fictitious legal citations in a summary judgment motion, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
AI-generated fake court precedents were included in a legal appeal, leading to sanctions against the litigant for bad-faith litigation.
1 source article · 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 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 →
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 →
