Michael Cohen Used Google Bard to Generate Fake Legal Citations in Court Filing
Michael Cohen, former lawyer to Donald Trump, used Google Bard to find case precedents for a motion to end his court supervision. The AI generated fictitious citations, which his lawyer included without verification. The fake cases were discovered by the judge, who found they did not exist. The incident may undermine Cohen's credibility as a witness in the upcoming Manhattan criminal case against Trump.
- Company involved
- Google
- AI system involved
- Google Bard
10 source articles · read the reporting →
Lawyers from Ellis George and K&L Gates Sanctioned for AI-Generated Fake Citations
Attorneys from Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates LLP submitted a brief to a special master in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California containing numerous hallucinated legal citations generated by AI tools including CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, and Google Gemini. The lawyers failed to verify the citations, and even after being alerted to errors, filed a corrected brief that still contained fake authorities. Special Master Michael Wilner found the conduct tantamount to bad faith, struck the brief, denied discovery relief, and ordered the firms to jointly pay $31,100 in the defendant's legal fees.
- Company involved
- Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates LLP
- AI system involved
- CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, Google Gemini
3 source articles · read the reporting →
Butler Snow lawyers removed from case after ChatGPT hallucinates citations
Three Butler Snow lawyers were removed from a case and publicly reprimanded by a federal judge after they filed motions containing five non-existent case citations generated by ChatGPT. The firm apologised and hired Morgan Lewis to review all citations, finding no other errors. The judge referred the lawyers to the Alabama State Bar and ordered them to disclose the sanctions to all clients and judges in pending cases. The incident highlights the risks of using AI for legal research without verification.
- Company involved
- Butler Snow
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
3 source articles · read the reporting →
Class action suit filed against Flock alleging company has 'repeatedly minimized' misuse of the system - WCNC
Class action suit filed against Flock alleging company has 'repeatedly minimized' misuse of the system WCNC
- Company involved
- Flock
1 source article · read the reporting →
Lawyer Under Fire Over ‘AI Slop’ Court Filing - jdjournal.com
Generated legal filings that were submitted to a court, potentially affecting the client's case and the court's proceedings.
- Company involved
- Jaclyn R. Soroka
1 source article · read the reporting →
In-house counsel group accuses rival of training AI on its materials - Reuters
In-house counsel group accuses rival of training AI on its materials Reuters
1 source article · read the reporting →
South African junior lawyer referred to council after AI generates fake case law
A junior advocate in South Africa used the AI tool Legal Genius to draft court submissions for an urgent licensing dispute. The written arguments contained multiple non-existent case citations, which the presiding judge discovered. The junior counsel admitted to using the AI tool, apologised, and was referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation, while the senior counsel also apologised for conducting only a 'sense-check'.
- Company involved
- Northbound Processing legal team
- AI system involved
- Legal Genius
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Lawyers fined $5,000 after citing fake ChatGPT-generated cases in court
Two lawyers from Levidow, Levidow, & Oberman used ChatGPT to research legal precedents for a client's personal injury case against Avianca. The AI chatbot generated six non-existent cases, which the lawyers submitted to a federal court without verification. After the opposing party and the judge questioned the citations, the lawyers initially stood by them before admitting the error. The judge dismissed the case and imposed a $5,000 fine on the lawyers for bad faith conduct.
- Company involved
- Levidow, Levidow, & Oberman
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
10 source articles · read the reporting →
GitHub Copilot Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Over Open-Source License Violations
A class-action lawsuit was filed against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI alleging that GitHub Copilot, an AI code-generation tool, was trained on public GitHub repositories in violation of open-source license attribution requirements. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants also violated the DMCA, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and GitHub's own terms of service. The lawsuit, filed in US federal court in San Francisco, seeks to represent potentially millions of GitHub users whose code was used without proper attribution.
- Company involved
- GitHub
- AI system involved
- GitHub Copilot
5 source articles · read the reporting →
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 →
FACIL'iti sues accessibility consultant Julie Moynat over critical tweet
In November 2020, Julie Moynat, a web accessibility consultant, tweeted criticism of FACIL'iti, an accessibility product. FACIL'iti sent a formal notice to her employer and later subpoenaed her for denigration in May 2021. Moynat is raising funds for her legal defense. The case is ongoing at the Judiciary Tribunal of Paris.
- Company involved
- FACIL'iti
- AI system involved
- FACIL'iti
10 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 →
Microsoft Copilot Audit Log Flaw Left Customers Unaware
A vulnerability in Microsoft 365 Copilot allowed users to access files without the access being recorded in audit logs, potentially enabling malicious insiders to exfiltrate data undetected. The flaw, discovered by Pistachio's CTO, was reported to Microsoft in July 2025 and fixed in August, but Microsoft decided not to issue a CVE or notify customers. The vulnerability could be triggered accidentally, meaning many organisations' audit logs may be incomplete. Microsoft classified the issue as 'important' but faced criticism for its lack of transparency.
- Company involved
- Microsoft
- AI system involved
- M365 Copilot
1 source article · 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 →
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 →
Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp (E.D. New York): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary sanction; public reprimand; order to serve…
The AI generated fake case citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Hovsepyan Law Group, PC
- AI system involved
- ChatOn
1 source article · read the reporting →
Kalala v. Coopérative d'habitation La Fraternité Micheloise (CS Québec): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction
The AI generated fabricated case law that was included in a court filing, misleading the court and resulting in sanctions against the litigant.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Titus Henderson files civil rights lawsuit against COMPAS
Titus Henderson, a prisoner, filed a civil rights lawsuit against COMPAS and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on July 16, 2018. The lawsuit alleges discrimination related to the use of the COMPAS risk assessment tool. The case is ongoing.
- AI system involved
- COMPAS
6 source articles · 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 →
