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 →
Mag 7 Ltd. et al. v. Tederi et al. (District Court, Tel Aviv-Yafo): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction;…
The AI generated fabricated case law that was submitted to the court, affecting the legal proceedings.
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
Johnson / Estate of Fisher v. City of Annapolis (D. Maryland): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, (Attorney was dismissed by…
The AI generated fabricated case law and quotes that were included in a court filing, affecting the plaintiffs and the judicial process.
- Company involved
- City of Annapolis
1 source article · read the reporting →
State v. Garrett (CC Wisconsin): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Case dismissed without prejudice
AI-generated court filing contained fabricated case law, affecting the defendant.
- Company involved
- Prosecutor's Office, CC Wisconsin
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 →
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 →
Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al. (11th Cir. CA): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Bar Referral
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 →
In re Rosslyn2016, LLC, et al. (S.D. Texas (Bankruptcy)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, CLE on generative AI; Civil Contempt;…
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were submitted to the bankruptcy court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
JMOR Properties v. Artist Alley Townhomes et al. (CA Florida (4d)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Bar Referral
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were included in a court filing, affecting the court and the opposing party.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Beus Gilbert PLLC v. Brigham Young University et al. (D. Utah): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Two AI-ethics CLE courses;…
The AI system generated fake legal citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →