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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
Barrister and solicitors fined for citing AI-generated fake cases in court
In the case of R (Ayinde) v Haringey, a barrister and solicitors for the claimant cited five fake cases in judicial review grounds. The judge found that the lawyers had misled the court and made wasted costs orders of £2,000 each against the barrister and the solicitors. The article suggests the fake cases may have been generated by an AI bot, and the lawyers failed to verify them.
- Company involved
- Haringey Law Centre
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Fake AI law firm sends DMCA threats for SEO backlinks
Ernie Smith, writer of the Tedium newsletter, received a DMCA copyright notice from 'Commonwealth Legal', a firm that appears to be entirely fabricated using AI-generated images and text. The notice demanded he add a backlink to the gadget review site Tech4Gods for a keyfob photo legitimately sourced from Unsplash. The scheme is designed to generate fake SEO gains through backlinks, and Smith did not receive any follow-up after the stated deadline.
- Company involved
- Commonwealth Legal
- AI system involved
- Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) model
1 source article · read the reporting →
New York lawyer faces discipline for citing ChatGPT-fabricated case in appeal
New York attorney Jae Lee cited a fabricated case in an appeal to revive a client's medical malpractice lawsuit against a Queens doctor. The case was suggested by ChatGPT and did not exist. The court dismissed the case and referred Lee to the grievance panel for further investigation. Lee stated there was no bad faith, but the court found her conduct fell below basic obligations of counsel.
- Company involved
- JSL Law Offices
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Morgan & Morgan lawyers cite fictional cases generated by AI chatbot
Lawyers at Morgan & Morgan filed a legal brief in a case against Walmart that cited nine cases, eight of which were entirely fictional. The firm admitted that an AI chatbot had generated the non-existent cases. Morgan & Morgan apologised for the error.
- Company involved
- Morgan & Morgan
10 source articles · 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 →
Anonymous Spanish Lawyer (Tribunal Constitucional): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Formal Reprimand (Apercibimiento) + Referral to Barcelona Bar for Disc
The AI system generated hallucinated content that was submitted in a court filing, potentially misleading the court.
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
