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.
142 incidents closest to “CoCounsel Legal” · matched on meaning · public reporting
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 →
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 →
The AI generated legal briefs containing fabricated citations, which were submitted to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
AI generated fabricated legal citations in a court filing by Shahryar Mazaheri.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were submitted to the bankruptcy court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
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 →
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 that were included in a court filing, affecting the court and the opposing party.
1 source article · read the reporting →
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 →
The AI generated false legal quotations that were submitted to the court in a legal brief.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fictitious legal citations that were submitted to the court in a legal filing.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fictitious legal authorities and arguments that were filed in a court motion, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
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 →
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 →
The AI system generated fake legal citations that were submitted to the court, resulting in a fine for contempt.
1 source article · read the reporting →
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.
9 source articles · read the reporting →
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.
5 source articles · read the reporting →
In August 2024, Andrea Bartz, Kirk Wallace Johnson and Charles Graeber filed a lawsuit against Anthropic PBC in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501. Anthropic waived service, and the case was assigned to the court.
8 source articles · read the reporting →
The Center for Investigative Reporting, publisher of Mother Jones and Reveal, has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in federal court, alleging the companies used its copyrighted articles without permission or compensation to train their AI products. The nonprofit argues that the AI-generated summaries of its stories threaten journalism and violate the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
6 source articles · read the reporting →
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.
8 source articles · read the reporting →
The AI generated nonexistent legal citations that were included in a court filing, causing the court to strike them from the appellant's brief.
1 source article · read the reporting →
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.
2 source articles · read the reporting →
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.
2 source articles · read the reporting →
In Withers v. City of Aberdeen, a contract dispute, both sides' attorneys submitted briefs containing fabricated case citations generated by AI tools. The court identified six non-existent citations and sanctioned all four attorneys, revoking pro hac vice admissions, imposing fines, and referring them to state bars. The drafting attorneys had used AI research and drafting tools without verifying outputs, while local counsel signed filings without review. The ruling emphasises that attorneys cannot delegate verification duties to AI and that ignorance of AI risks is no defence.
2 source articles · read the reporting →
