Tenth Circuit Sanctions Maryland Lawyer for AI-Hallucinated Citations
Kusmin L. Amarsingh, a Maryland lawyer representing herself, was sanctioned $1,000 by the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit after she used ChatGPT to draft an appellate brief that cited multiple nonexistent cases. The court found her actions reckless and referred her to Maryland attorney-disciplinary authorities. Amarsingh admitted the error and completed a continuing legal education course on AI ethics. The underlying racial bias lawsuit against Frontier Airlines was dismissed.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
2 source articles · read the reporting →
Sixth Circuit Sanctions Lawyer for Using AI-Generated False Citations in Brief
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.
- Company involved
- Howe's law office
- AI system involved
- Westlaw CoCounsel
1 source article · read the reporting →
Høyesterett receives first court brief with fabricated AI legal sources
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 →
South African magistrate cautions against blind trust in AI after ChatGPT generates fictitious case law
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.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Grammarly pulls AI tool that impersonated writers without consent
Grammarly, operated by Superhuman, disabled its Expert Review AI feature that offered writing suggestions in the style of famous authors like Stephen King and Julia Angwin. The tool used writers' names and personas without consent, leading to a class-action lawsuit filed in New York alleging misappropriation of identities for commercial gain. Investigative journalist Julia Angwin described the imitation as a 'slopperganger' that gave poor advice. Superhuman's CEO apologised, acknowledging the tool had 'misrepresented' the voices of experts, and the company removed it for redesign.
- Company involved
- Superhuman
- AI system involved
- Grammarly Expert Review
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Attorney Sanctioned $2,500 for AI-Hallucinated Citations in Brief
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.
- AI system involved
- Casetext / vLex
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Arizona court sanctions litigant for AI-hallucinated legal citations
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 →
Colorado lawyer suspended for using ChatGPT to draft motion with fictitious cases
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.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Barrister and solicitors fined for citing AI-generated fake cases in court
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.
- Company involved
- Haringey Law Centre
5 source articles · read the reporting →
New York lawyer faces discipline for citing ChatGPT-fabricated case in appeal
New York attorney Jae Lee cited a fabricated case in an appeal to revive a client's medical malpractice lawsuit against a Queens doctor. The case was suggested by ChatGPT and did not exist. The court dismissed the case and referred Lee to the grievance panel for further investigation. Lee stated there was no bad faith, but the court found her conduct fell below basic obligations of counsel.
- Company involved
- JSL Law Offices
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Canary Islands court fines lawyer for AI-generated false case citations
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.
- Company involved
- Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias
4 source articles · 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 →
Chicago Tribune sues Perplexity AI for copyright infringement
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.
- Company involved
- Perplexity AI, Inc.
5 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 →
Smith v. Farwell (Massachusetts): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Fine (Supervising Lawyer)
The AI generated hallucinated legal citations that were filed in court, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
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 →
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 →
Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (D.C. Court of Appeals): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Brief Stricken; Bar Referral
The AI generated fake legal citations that were included in an appellate brief, misleading the court and the opposing party.
- AI system involved
- Google AI
1 source article · read the reporting →
Evans v. Robertson (4) (E.D. Michigan): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Briefs (both sides) struck
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 →
Yasiel Puig Valdes v. All3Media America, LLC, et al. (SCA California (Los Angeles)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Referral
The AI generated fake legal citations that were included in a court filing, potentially harming the plaintiff's case.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
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 →
Gittemeier v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company (E.D. Missouri): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Costs Order + Fine; One Attorney…
The AI system generated fictitious legal citations in a summary judgment motion, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Unnamed Brazilian litigant (): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Appeal partially granted (reintegration suspended, rent imposed), but
AI-generated fake court precedents were included in a legal appeal, leading to sanctions against the litigant for bad-faith litigation.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
1 source article · read the reporting →
