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 →
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 →
EPIC lawsuit challenges USPS secret surveillance program using facial recognition
The United States Postal Service's law enforcement wing, the Postal Inspection Service, ran a secret surveillance program called the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) that used facial recognition from Clearview AI and social media monitoring tools to infiltrate online communities and monitor protests. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) sued the USPS for failing to conduct and publish a privacy impact assessment as required by the E-Government Act. A federal district court dismissed the lawsuit on standing grounds, ruling that EPIC did not suffer a cognizable injury from the agency's refusal to disclose information about the program.
- Company involved
- United States Postal Service
- AI system involved
- Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP)
10 source articles · 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 →
Henry v. Long Island University (E.D. New York): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Two-year filing-disclosure sanction
The court granted a motion to dismiss and imposed sanctions on plaintiff's counsel for submitting a brief with AI-hallucinated fake cases.
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 →
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 →
Jessica Fuller v. Hyde School, et al. (D. Maine): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, CLE; Firm procedures and certification; Serve…
The AI generated fictitious legal citations that were submitted to the court in a legal filing.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT or Claude
1 source article · read the reporting →
Reaves Law Firm, PLLC v. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, et al. (W.D. Tennessee): AI-hallucinated content in court…
The AI generated fictitious legal authorities and arguments that were filed in a court motion, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Reaves Law Firm, PLLC
1 source article · read the reporting →
Southland Homes & Real Estate and Investment, LLC v. Lam (SC California): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanctions; Bar…
The AI system generated legal briefs containing fabricated case citations, which were filed in court, affecting the court and the opposing party.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Joyce Barber v. Lawrence J. Morawa, MD (CA Michigan): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Case remanded to consider sanctions; Bar…
AI-generated fake legal citations were submitted to the court, affecting the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's legal costs.
1 source article · read the reporting →
ООО «Точка опоры» v. ООО «ЦСС» (West Siberian District AC): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Fine
The AI system generated fake legal citations that were submitted to the court, resulting in a fine for contempt.
- Company involved
- ООО «ЦСС»
1 source article · read the reporting →
Lawyer used ChatGPT to cite fake cases in BC parenting application
In a British Columbia Supreme Court case, lawyer Chong Ke used ChatGPT to generate legal case citations for a notice of application in a parenting dispute. The citations were fictitious and were discovered by opposing counsel, who incurred costs investigating them. Ke later acknowledged the error, apologized, and withdrew the fake cases before the hearing. The court considered whether to order special costs against Ke personally.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
9 source articles · read the reporting →
California judge sanctions law firms for using AI to generate fake legal citations
Two law firms submitted a supplemental brief containing fake legal citations generated by AI systems including Google Gemini and Westlaw's CoCounsel. Judge Michael Wilner imposed $31,000 in sanctions after discovering the citations were fabricated. The lawyers admitted using AI without proper review or disclosure.
- Company involved
- K&L Gates
- AI system involved
- Google Gemini, Westlaw Precision with CoCounsel
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Microsoft Copilot vulnerable to automated phishing and data theft
Security researcher Michael Bargury demonstrated at Black Hat that Microsoft's Copilot AI can be manipulated by attackers to send phishing emails, extract private data, and bypass security protections. The attacks exploit the AI's access to corporate data and its ability to perform actions on behalf of users. Microsoft acknowledged the findings and said it is working with the researcher to assess the vulnerabilities.
- Company involved
- Microsoft
- AI system involved
- Copilot
3 source articles · read the reporting →
Publishers sue AI startup Cohere over alleged copyright infringement
A consortium of 14 publishers including Condé Nast, The Atlantic, and Forbes filed a lawsuit against Cohere, alleging that the generative AI startup engaged in massive, systematic copyright infringement by using at least 4,000 copyrighted works to train its AI models and display large portions of articles, harming referral traffic. Cohere denied the allegations, calling the lawsuit misguided and frivolous.
- Company involved
- Cohere
- AI system involved
- Cohere's AI models
8 source articles · read the reporting →
Kansas judge fines lawyers $12,000 for AI-generated fake citations in patent case
A Kansas federal judge fined four lawyers a total of $12,000 for filing court documents containing non-existent quotations and case citations generated by ChatGPT. The lawyers, representing patent holder Lexos Media IP, failed to verify the AI's output, which included hallucinated legal authorities. The judge imposed fines ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 and ordered one lawyer to report the incident to state disciplinary authorities. The sanctioned attorneys acknowledged the error and stated that firms should implement strict policies for AI use.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
2 source articles · read the reporting →
Ninth Circuit Sanctions Attorneys Over AI-Hallucinated Legal Briefs
The Ninth Circuit sanctioned immigration attorneys from Sethi Law Group after they filed briefs containing AI-generated false cases and quotations. The court imposed monetary sanctions, a six-month suspension from Ninth Circuit practice, and referred the matter to the California State Bar. The court also required future filings to disclose AI use and certify that all citations were verified. The case is Lnu v. Blanche.
- Company involved
- Sethi Law Group
2 source articles · read the reporting →