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 →
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 →
United States v. Hayes (E.D. California): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Formal Sanction Imposed + Written Reprimand
The AI-generated fictitious citation was submitted in a motion to unseal, affecting the defendant's legal proceedings.
- Company involved
- Federal Public Defender's Office, Eastern District of California
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 →
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 →
Garry Chapman v. City of Priceville, et al. (N.D. Alabama): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Public reprimand; Order to Notice
The AI generated fake legal citations that were submitted to a federal court, potentially misleading the judge and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Scott Morro
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 →
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 →
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 →
Heriberto Perez-Castillo v. Todd W. Blanche (7th Cir. CA): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction; Admonishment; Bar Referral
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 →
TOV Realty, LLC v. Suarez; Kosel Equity, LLC v. MacGregor (SC Connecticut): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, 6 hours CLE;…
The AI generated legal briefs containing fabricated citations, which were submitted to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
- Company involved
- GLG Law LLC
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
1 source article · read the reporting →
Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario (Law Society Tribunal (ON)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Adverse Costs Order
AI generated fabricated legal citations in a court filing by Shahryar Mazaheri.
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 →
Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC (CA California (1d)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction; Bar referral
AI generated hallucinated legal citations that were filed in court, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Lipeles Law Group
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 →
In re BFI Waste Sys. of Tenn. (M.D. Tennessee): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Public reprimand; Monetary sanction
The AI generated false legal quotations that were submitted to the court in a legal brief.
- Company involved
- Ringger
1 source article · read the reporting →