AI hallucination cases can, and do, reach real courtrooms and have real consequences.
What this page is for
Generative-AI tools sometimes invent case citations, statutes, articles or facts. When those errors slip into legal documents the consequences are serious. Sometimes elements get struck out, fines are imposed, lawyers sanctioned and in extreme cases maybe even committal proceedings launched. This page tracks publicly reported decisions and strives to be one reliable index of AI hallucination cases in live legal practice.
How to use the table
- Each row summarises one decision. You’ll see the country, the date, which AI tool was involved, a short note describing the hallucination, what was done about it or is proposed, and whether the person using AI was a lawyer, a litigant-in-person (self represented) or other.
- Click Link in the last column to open a source it is hoped that the links will provide some authoritative source, but if it doesn’t and you are aware of one, please let us know. The best sources are usually a court website, a statutory legal archive such as BAILII, CanLII or CourtListener, or a PDF published directly by a disciplinary tribunal etc.
- The table is searchable and sortable: type in the search box to filter by country, tool or sanction, or click any column header to sort.
Why you still need to read the original document
Although I try and check each entry carefully, this page is only a summary. The authoritative version of every decision is the one you must locate yourself. Procedures can move fast: sanctions may be appealed, recommendations can become final, costs can be varied and I may not update in time. Always read the original judgment, order or ruling and you should not rely on this table in practice, publication or teaching.
Keeping the tracker current
I try to add new AI hallucination cases as soon as they are brought to my attention. The page updates automatically because the table is managed in TablePress; whenever a new row is saved, the latest version appears here without extra work. Look for the “Last updated” line beneath the table to know when the most recent changes were made.
Scope
Not all hallucinations are confirmed. In some cases, it was merely alleged. Alleged hallucinations may be included if the allegation itself was significant to the proceeding.
Why the problem matters
- Accuracy is fundamental. Judges rely on counsel to supply real authorities. AI hallucination cases erode trust in written advocacy and evidence.
- Professional duties are evolving. Many ethics codes now say lawyers must understand the technology they use. Sanctions in these decisions often reference competence rules. This is discussed elsewhere on this blog.
- Public confidence is important. When headlines report AI inventing cases, the public questions the legal system’s rigour. Tracking responses across jurisdictions shows how the profession is confronting the risk.
Caution
This tracker is provided for general information only and is not legal advice. The summaries and links do not replace the official judgment, and if you wish to rely on any case you must obtain the authoritative version yourself, direct from the court, tribunal or official reporter as appropriate. Do not rely solely on the information or links shown here. Before taking any action, obtain independent, qualified legal advice.
Last updated: 16 May 2025
| Case Name | Country | Date | AI Tool | Hallucination | Judicial Observation (Quote) | Notes | Who Used AI | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuzniar v General Dental Council (ET 6009997/2024) | UK | 20 August 25 | ChatGPT/Other | False Citations | “The Claimant conducted the claim unreasonably as described above by referring to the Respondent a large number of nonsensical and in many cases non-existent citations without taking any or sufficient care to check them first. By not doing so she passed the work of checking them to the Respondent to have to do at short notice. My discretion to award costs is engaged. Furthermore, although I did not make any formal enquiry into her financial means, she told me that she has only £2000 in the bank and is struggling to find work as a dentist because of the conditions imposed by the Respondent. However, I decline to award costs because AI is a relatively new tool which the public is still getting used to, the Claimant acted honestly (and furthermore has presented her case honestly to me over the last two days), and she tried to her best to rectify the situation as soon as she became aware of her mistake.” (paras 45-47) | No sanction or costs order due to new tool, honestly, and best efforts to rectify mistake | Litigant in Person | link |
| Father v Mother [2025] EWHC 2135 (Fam | UK | 30 July 25 | Unspecified | False Citations | “(16) The F then made a further application on a C2 asking that HHJ Bailey recuse herself on the basis of being biased against him and her not understanding ASD and the impacts of his diagnosis. This came before the Judge on 10 June 2025. In his written application to the court the F referred to a number of previous authorities, in particular relating to ASD. HHJ Bailey realised that many of these cases were not genuine, and the submission appeared to have been generated by Artificial Intelligence (“AI”). In light of the level of recent concern about litigants and lawyers using AI and referring to cases which are not genuine (as reflected in the Divisional Court decision R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383), HHJ Bailey referred the case to me as the Family Presiding Judge for the Midlands.” “The F relied upon faked cases without apparently making any effort to check their veracity. It is in my view important to note that the F is someone who is well capable of checking references and ensuring documents are accurate if it is in his interests to do so.” | Judge ordered F to pay the costs | Litigant in Person | link |
| HMRC v Gunnarsson [2025] UKUT 247 | UK | 23 July 2025 | Unspecified | False Citations | “…In this case, HMRC was put to the trouble of having to investigate the existence of the purported decisions relied upon by the Respondent. Fortunately, they did so. Depending on the circumstances, there may be occasions when the opposing party or the tribunal are not able to discover the errors relied upon. There may be others where an adjournment is required to investigate or address the inaccurate information…” | Warning to all Court users | Litigant in Person | link |
| Ms (Bangladesh) v SoS for Home Department | UK | 1 July 2025 | ChatGPT | Unclear if Hallucination | 13. We sought clarification regarding this citation and reference and asked for the relevant paragraph of the judgment being relied on. [counsel] was not able to specify this. [counsel] submitted that he understood, having used ChatGBT, that the Court of Appeal in Y (China) [2010] EWCA Civ 116 was presided by Pill LJ, LJ Sullivan LJ and Sir Paul Kennedy. However, the citation [2010] EWCA Civ 116 did not point to the case of Y (China) but to R (on the application of YH) v SSHD. We raised concern about this and referred [counsel] to the recent decision of the President of King’s Bench Division in Ayinde [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) on the use of Artificial Intelligence and fictitious cases, and directed him to make separate representations in writing. 14. In his subsequent written representations, [counsel] clarified that Y(China) was a typological error and he sought to rely on R (on the application of YH) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 116 where, when discussing the meaning of ‘anxious scrutiny’ in asylum claims…” | TBC | Lawyer | link |
| UB v SoS for Home Department | UK | 18 June 25 | Unspecified | False Citations | The drafter then “inadvertently uploaded the draft version [of the Grounds] rather than the final one”. The Judge accepted the explanation and that solicitors had: “…recognised this seriousness of this issue and has taken commendable steps to ensure it will not be repeated including (i) meeting with the caseworker who drafted the Grounds; (ii) holding a partners’ meeting to discuss adopting an AI policy and assigning the task of finalising an AI policy to a colleague in consultation with an AI professional; (iii) conducting relevant in-house training and issuing interim AI Guidance and (iv) planning for comprehensive staff training by an AI professional….” | Warning | Lawyer | link |
| (BL O/0559/25) | UK | July 2025 | ChatGPT | Type 7-8 potentially | “As identified in Ayinde (including in the Appendix setting out domestic and overseas examples of attempts to rely on fake citations), fabrication of citations can involve making up a case entirely, making up quotes and attributing them to a real case, and also making up a legal proposition and attributing it to a real case even though the case is not relevant to the legal proposition being made (for instance, it deals with a completely different issue or area of law). It is not, however, fabrication to make an honest mistake as to what a court held in a particular case or to be genuinely mistaken as to the effect of a court’s judgment. In any event, it does not matter whether fabrication was arrived at with or without the aid of generative artificial intelligence. I therefore need to consider what if any sanction is appropriate.” | Warning to both | Litigant in Person and Trade Mark Attorney | link |
| Shahid v Esaam | US | June 25 | AI not certain | Fake cases | “We are troubled by the citation of bogus cases in the trial court’s order. As the reviewing court, we make no findings of fact as to how this impropriety occurred, observing only that the order purports to have been prepared by Husband’s attorney, …. We further note that Lynch had cited the two fictitious cases that made it into the trial court’s order in Husband’s response to the petition to reopen, and she cited additional fake cases both in that Response and in the Appellee’s Brief filed in this Court.” | Judge cited fake cases in court order | Lawyer and Judge | link |
| Jakes v Youngblood | US | June 25 | AI use disputed. | False Citations | “These quotations are merely representative of the fabricated statements in [B’s] briefs. There are additional fabricated quotations that the Court does not enumerate in this order. In addition to including non-existent quotations in his briefs, Blackburn also cited cases for propositions that they do not represent. The Court will not recite every time [B] misconstrued a case in his briefs as it believes the above quotations represent the most serious and alarming issues with the documents. Attorneys are permitted to make creative case comparisons and may even stretch existing case law to support their arguments. Nevertheless, advocacy is confined by Rule ll(b) and Pa. RPC 3.3. Attorneys have a duty of candor to the Court. They must make reasonable inquiries under the circumstances to ensure their legal contentions are warranted by existing law. Attorneys may not fabricate non-existent quotations, from case law or the Court’s opinion, and may not cite cases for legal propositions for which they do not stand (or even discuss).” | Further hearing listed 24 July 2025 | Lawyer | “Link |
| Not specified – referred to in Ayinde below. | UK | April 25 | Unspecified | Non existent cases. | “That was a case before the County Court … That counsel drew attention to the fact that the application before the judge contained false material: specifically the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument settled … contained references to a number of cases that do not exist….” | Judge satisfied by assurances given to court by Barrister and Head of Chambers not to take further action. | Lawyer | “Link Link“ |
| Mid Central Operating Engineers HWF v Hoosiervac LLC | US | May 25 | Unspecified | Fake cases | “That said, in considering an appropriate sanction the Court takes into account the steps [Lawyer] has taken “to educate himself on the responsible use of AI in legal practice” and adhere to “the highest standards of professional conduct moving forward.” See dkt. 102 at 2. The Court also considers the collateral consequences that [Lawyer] has experienced, and may continue to experience, from having improperly relied on non-existent AI-generated legal citations…so, the court has considered those circumstances alongside its interest in deterring careless or reckless attorney conduct.” | Sanction of $6,000 not accepting recommended $15,000 | Lawyer | Link |
| Versant Funding LLC v Teras Breakbulk Ocean | US | May 25 | Unspecified | admitted submission of a wholly fabricated “hallucinated” case citation | “In the Court’s view, there is nothing inherently wrong with an attorney properly and competently utilizing AI or any of its subsets to practice law or litigate cases. [But a] basic prerequisite to the filing of any … paper in court is for the drafting and filing attorney(s) to carefully check every case citation, fact, and argument to make sure that they are correct and proper. Attorneys cannot delegate that role to AI, computers, robots, or any other form of technology.” | Pay counsel’s fees. Complete CLE on AI. $1,000 and $500 fine. | Lawyer | |
| Alharoun v Qatar National Bank and QNB | UK | May 25 | TBC | TBC | “In CL-2024-000435, it appears from the Order of Mrs Justice Dias that correspondence was sent to the court, and witness statements were filed, citing authorities that do not exist and claiming that other authorities contained passages that they do not contain” Rt Hon. Dame Victoria Sharp | TBC – Not clear if AI but linked with Ayinde v Haringey below so keep under review. | TBC | Link |
| R (Ayinde) v Haringey | UK | May 25 | AI use disputed. | Citation of Fake Cases | “ It is such a professional shame. The submission was a good one. The medical evidence was strong. The ground was potentially good. Why put a fake case in?” “I should say it is the responsibility of the legal team, including the solicitors, to see that the statement of facts and grounds are correct.” “…I consider that it would have been negligent for this barrister, if she used AI and did not check it, to put that text into her pleading.” Mr Justice Richie | Wasted costs £2,000 Counsel and £2,000 Solicitor and referral to regulators. FURTHER HEARING 23 May | Lawyers (accused not found) | Link Link |
| Willis v Bank National Association | US | May 25 | N/A | Court discusses pros and cons of AI and allows careful use. | “[b]y presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper – whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it – an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances ․ the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law…” “…[c]onfirming a case is good law is a basic, routine matter and something to be expected from a practicing attorney…” | Court issued standing order – rules in relation to AI use | N/A | link |
| Concord MG v Anthropic PBC | USA | May 25 | Claud (Anthropic) | Allegation cited article was invented by Claude | “The Court gave Anthropic time to investigate the circumstances surrounding the challenged citation. …the Court finds this issue is a serious one—if not quite so grave as it at first appeared. Anthropic’s counsel protests that this was “an honest citation mistake” but admits that Claude.ai was used to “properly format” at least three citations and, in doing so, generated a fictitious article name with inaccurate authors (who have never worked together) for the citation at issue… That is a plain and simple AI hallucination. Yet the underlying article exists, was properly linked to and was located by a human being using Google search; so, this is not a case where “attorneys and experts [have] abdicate[d] their independent judgment and critical thinking skills in favor of ready-made, AI-generated answers….” “…A remaining serious concern, however, is Anthropic’s attestation that a “manual citation check” was performed but “did not catch th[e] error.” | Written explanation Ordered | Expert/Lawyer | Link |
| Nexgen Pathology Services Ltd v Darceuil Duncan | Trinidad & Tobago | May 25 | Unverified Google/ChatGPT research (admitted “online source now unavailable”) | non‑existent cases. | 69. The Court acknowledges that digital tools including AI and internet-based platforms, are increasingly common and valuable in legal research; indeed, this Court itself makes use of such tools where appropriate. However, their use must be accompanied by discernment and subjected to rigorous verification. This is because AI-generated content is susceptible to producing what are commonly referred to as “hallucinations”: fabricated, yet plausible-sounding outputs that may result from gaps or limitations in the model’s underlying data. Legal practitioners must not rely on such tools uncritically. Any information obtained through these means must be independently verified before being presented to the Court. 70. The Court emphasizes that citing non-existent cases, even inadvertently, constitutes a serious abuse of process and professionalism. It risks misleading the Court, prejudicing the opposing party, and eroding public confidence in the administration of justice. Counsel are reminded that the duty of candour to the Court requires that they verify the authenticity of every case cited. If any material has been generated with the assistance of AI or other non-traditional sources, full disclosure to the Court is both appropriate and expected.” The Hon. Mr. Justice Westmin R.A. James | condemned the “irresponsible use of generative AI,” struck the authorities, referred both counsel to the Law Association’s Disciplinary Committee, and reminded practitioners of their duty to verify AI‑derived material | Lawyer | Link |
| Ko v Li | Canada | May 25 | ChatGPT (suspected) | multiple non-existent or mis-linked authorities | [14] This occurrence seems similar to cases in which people have had factums drafted by generative artificial intelligence applications (like ChatGPT). Some of these applications have been found to sometimes create fake legal citations that have been dubbed “hallucinations.” It appears that Ms. Lee’s factum may have been created by AI and that before filing the factum and relying on it in court, she might not have checked to make sure the cases were real or supported the propositions of law which she submitted to the court in writing and then again orally. FL Myers J | show cause why should not be cited for contempt. | Lawyer | Link |
| Reclamação 78.890 | Brazil | May 25 | TBC – awaiting verified English translation of the judgment. | TBC – awaiting verified English translation of the judgment. | TBC – awaiting verified English translation of the judgment. | Summary withheld until a reliable translation is available. Readers should consult the original Portuguese decision linked in the final column. | TBC | Link |
| Lacey v State Farm General Ins | US | May 25 | Google Gemini + Westlaw Precision (CoCounsel) | approximately nine of the 27 legal citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect in some way. At least two of the authorities cited do not exist at all. Additionally, several quotations attributed to the cited judicial opinions were phony and did not accurately represent those materials. | supplemental briefs struck, no further discovery relief, Lawyers to pay compensation $31,100 | Lawyer | Link | |
| Ramirez v Humala | US | May 25 | Uncertain | Reply letter cited four non-existent cases. | $1,000 monetary sanction and service of order on client | Lawyer | Link | |
| Bandla v SRA | UK | May 25 | Google Searches, not Gen-AI | fake or mis-described case authorities in appeal grounds and skeleton. | Citation caused grounds of appeal to be struck out as abuse of process. | Litigant in Person (former solicitor) | Link | |
| ZZaman v Revenue & Customs | UK | Apr 25 | Unspecified | False Cases | 29. However, our conclusion was that Mr Zzaman’s statement of case, written with the assistance of AI, did not provide grounds for allowing his appeal. Although some of the case citations in Mr Zzaman’s statement were inaccurate, the use of AI did not appear to have led to the citing of fictitious cases (in contrast to what had happened in Felicity Harber v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1007 (TC) ). But our conclusion was that the cases cited did not provide authority for the propositions that were advanced. This highlights the dangers of reliance on AI tools without human checks to confirm that assertions the tool is generating are accurate. Litigants using AI tools for legal research would be well advised to check carefully what it produces and any authorities that are referenced. These tools may not have access to the authorities required to produce an accurate answer, may not fully “understand” what is being asked or may miss relevant materials. When this happens, AI tools may produce an answer that seems plausible, but which is not accurate. These tools may create fake authorities (as seemed to be the case in Harber ) or use the names of cases to which it does have access but which are not relevant to the answer being sought (as was the case in this appeal). There is no reliable way to stop this, but the dangers can be reduced by the use of clear prompts, asking the tool to cite specific paragraphs of authorities (so that it is easy to check if the paragraphs support the argument advanced), checking to see the tool has access to live internet data, asking the tool not to provide an answer if it is not sure and asking the tool for information on the shortcomings of the case being advanced. Otherwise there is a significant danger that the use of an AI tool may lead to material being put before the court that serves no one well, since it raises the expectations of litigants and wastes the court’s time and that of opposing parties. | Guidance of how to avoid issues. | Litigant in Person | link |
| Saxena v Martínez-Hernández 2025 WL 1194003 | US | Apr 25 | Unspecified | AI hallucinations that could not be located. | Warning that Gen AI citations may trigger sanctions | Litigant in Person | link | |
| Bevins v Colgate-Palmolive Co | US | Apr 25 | Unspecified | Both citations appear to be artificial intelligence (“AI”) “hallucinations” made up of parts of actual cases [read full footnote 10] | serve order on Bar, appearance stricken, inform and new counsel. | Lawyer | Link Link |
|
| Coomer v Lindell et al (My Pillow) | US | Apr 25 | Unspecified | the Court identified nearly thirty defective citations | Order to Show Cause directing counsel and firm to explain why they, their clients and in-house lawyers should not be sanctioned and referred to disciplinary authorities, and to certify personal service of the order. | Lawyer | Link | |
| Dehghani v. Castro | US | Apr 25 | ChatGPT (likely the handiwork of a ChatGPT-style AI program’s hallucination) | Six non-existent authorities | $1,500 fine, 1-hour CLE AI/Ethics and report to Bar | Lawyer | Link | |
| Benjamin v Costco Wholesale Corp | US | Apr 25 | ChatOn (mobile generative-AI app) | Reply in support of a motion to remand cited four non-existent cases created by ChatOn | $1 000 fine, ordered counsel to serve the order on her client and file proof of service, | Lawyer | Link | |
| Williams v Capital One | US | Mar 25 | CoCounsel | Non existent cases – Judge named the false citations in judgment | “It is not acceptable for parties to submit “filings to the Court containing citations to legal authority that does not exist, whether drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence or not. “ | Dismissed and warning. | Lawyer | link |
| Nguyen v Savage Enterprises | US | Mar 25 | Uncertain (AI… may have crept in) | citing nonexistent authority in brief | show cause | Lawyer | Link |
|
| Mid Central Operating Engineers | US | Feb 25 | Unspecified | Three fake case citations. | $15,000 in sanctions (US $5 000 per brief), referral for further professional discipline, and an order that counsel notify. | Lawyer | Link | |
| Unnamed appeal (TJ Santa Catarina, Boletim-TJSC | Brazil | Feb 25 | TBC – awaiting verified English translation of the judgment. | TBC – awaiting verified English translation of the judgment. | Summary withheld until a reliable translation is available. Readers should consult the original Portuguese decision linked in the final column. | TBC | Link | |
| Wadsworth v Walmart Inc | US | Feb 25 | MX2.law | Eight non-existent authorities | Main counsel’s pro hac vice admission revoked; barred from case; fined US $3,000, plus US $1,000 fines for certain other counsel. | Lawyer | Link | |
| Bunce v Visual Tech. Innovations, Inc | US | Feb 25 | ChatGPT | non-existent and mis-characterised cases | Show cause, US $2 500 penalty, completion of a one-hour CLE on AI & ethics, and warned further breaches would draw harsher pen | Lawyer | Link | |
| Valu v Minister for Immigration | Aus | Jan 25 | Unspecified | Fabricated citations | lawyer referred to regulator and caution given about AI | Lawyer | link |
|
| Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet | UK | Jan 25 | Unspecified | The appellants submitted a summary of a non-existent case, which was included in their authorities bundle. | “I have narrowly and somewhat reluctantly come to the conclusion that I should not cause a summons for contempt of court to be issued to the appellants under CPR rule 81.6. I do not think it likely that a judge (whether myself or another judge) could be sure, to the criminal standard of proof, that the appellants knew the case summary was a fake. They may have known but they could not be compelled to answer questions about the identity of the person who supplied it.” Mr Justice Kerr | While considering contempt proceedings, the judge ultimately decided against it, noting the appellants’ lack of legal representation and cooperation. | Litigant in Person | link |
| Mavundla v MEC | South Afrrica | Jan 25 | ChatGPT/Meta (suspected) | cited multiple non-existent or mis-quoted authorities. | Referred to Legal Practice Council for investigation and further action. Attorneys pay costs of certain appearances. | Lawyer | Link | |
| Kohls and Franson v Ellison | US | Jan 25 | GPT-4o | Two non-existent academic articles and mis-attributed a third. | Expert witness evidence excluded. | Expert Witness | Link | |
| United States v Hayes | US | Jan 25 | Unspecified | Discussion about citation hallucination and citation error | Show cause. | Lawyer | Link |
|
| Gauthier v Goodyear Tire & Rubber | US | Nov 24 | Claud (Anthropic) | summary-judgment response quoted two imaginary cases and several fabricated quotations generated with Claude; after a show-cause order, counsel admitted the error | $2 000 penalty, required completion of a 1-hour CLE on AI/ethics, and ordered service of the order on the client | Lawyer | Link | |
| Handa v Mallick | Aus | Jul 24 | LEAP | generated list of authorities | practitioner afforded an opportunity make submissions as to why conduct in tendering the list of authorities should not be referred | Lawyer | link |
|
| Grant v City of Long Beach 96 F.4th 1255 | US | Mar 24 | Unspecified | filed an opening brief replete with misrepresentations and fabricated case law. The brief included only a handful of accurate citations, almost all of which were of little use to this Court because they were not accompanied by coherent explanations of how they supported appellants’ claims. | struck brief and dismissed appeal. | Lawyer | link |
|
| Zhang v Chen | Canada | Feb 24 | ChatGPT | Citation of two non-existent cases. | Masuhara J. held: “…Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court. Unchecked, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice…” | Lawyer pay costs personally and review files | Lawyer | Link |
| Park v Kim | US | Jan 24 | ChatGPT | Single non-existent state-court decision cited in the appellant’s reply brief | Lawyer referred to grievance panel and serve order on client. | Lawyer | Link | |
| Vanguard Construction & Development Co. v 400 Times Square Associates, LLC (2025). | US | 24 | ChatGPT (alleged) | the brief was accused of being AI-generated, but the court found the insinuation unsubstantiated | Court admonished counsel for making an evidence-free allegation; no sanctions were imposed | Lawyers (accused not found) | Link | |
| Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr. Craig Steven Wright | UK | 24 | ChatGPT (likely not certain) | Series of authorities that do not contain passages attributed. | false references unlikely to be deliberate. Principles not in doubt so court didn’t engage further. | Litigant in Person | Link | |
| Sala Primera del Tribunal Constitucional – Nota Informativa 90/2024 | Spain | TBC | TBC – awaiting verified English translation of the judgment. | TBC – awaiting verified English translation of the judgment. | Summary withheld until a reliable translation is available. Readers should consult the original Portuguese decision linked in the final column. | TBC | Link | |
| Al-Hamim v Star Hearthstone 2024COA128 | US | Dec 24 | Unspecified | Fake authorities | Declined sanctions but warned future penalties for AI misuse | Litigant in Person | link | |
| Mortazavi v Hamilton | US | Sep 24 | Uncertain | Motion to remand contained a citation to a non-existent case and other errors produced with AI; declaration (no AI disc) | Order to Show Cause | Lawyer | Link |
|
| Dayal | Aus | Aug 24 | Unnamed AI in practice-management suite | Non existent cases | Referred to professional body | Lawyer | link | |
| US v Cohen | US | Mar 24 | Google Bard | Non-existent cases | Court declined to impose sanctions for the citation in that motion to nonexistent cases. | Lawyer | “` :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0} | |
| Kruse v Karlen | US | Feb 24 | Unspecified generative-AI via hired online “consultant” purporting to be an attorney to prepare the Brief. Indicated that the fee paid amounted to less than one percent of the cost of retaining an attorney. | Apologised for submitting fictitious cases. Did not know. denied intention to mislead. | court branded the appeal frivolous, dismissed it and damages. | Litigant in Person | Link | |
| Moffatt v Air Canada | Canada | Feb 24 | website customer-service chatbot | Chatbot suggested passenger could apply for bereavement fares retroactively. Passenger later learned airline did not permit retroactive applications. | Negligent Misrep. $650.88 damages, CA $36.14 interest, and CA $125 tribunal fees. | Chatbot | Link | |
| Smith v Farwell | US | Feb 24 | Unspecified | Fabricated US Supreme Court cases | $2,000 sanction on counsel and warning to bar. | Lawyer | link | |
| re Thomas G. Neusom | US | Jan 24 | Unspecified | inaccurate citations and fabricated authorities | Suspension and corrective steps. | Laywer | Link Link |
|
| Will of Samuel | US | Jan 24 | Unspecified | Multiple fictional citations | Further hearing set. | Lawyer | Link | |
| Harber v HMRC | UK | Dec 23 | ChatGPT | Nine fabricated FTT decisions. | Tribunal criticised the wasted time and money caused. | Litigant in Person | Link | |
| Thomas v Pangburn 2023 WL 9425765 | US | Oct 23 | Unspecified | misleading citations | Court highlighted dangers | Litigant in Person | link |
|
| People v Crabill | US | Nov 23 | ChatGPT | Cited non-existent cases and mis-described cases. | one year and one day suspension, with ninety days to be served and the remainder to be stayed upon successful completion of a two year period of probation, with conditions. | Lawyer | Link | |
| Ex parte Lee | US | Jul 23 | Unspecified | False case citation | court noted brief “may have been prepared by AI” but imposed no sanctions; stressed verification duty | Lawyer | link | |
| Parker v Forsyth N.O. | South Africa | Jun 23 | ChatGPT | Cases cited – names and citations are fictitious, the facts are fictitious, and the decisions are fictitious. | “The Plaintiff’s attorneys used this artificial intelligence medium to conduct legal research and accepted the results that it generated without satisfying themselves as to its accuracy. As it turned out, the cases listed above do not exist. The names and citations are fictitious, the facts are fictitious, and the decisions are fictitious. The Plaintiff’s counsel was constrained to concede as much. ” [87] A Chaitram Regional Magistrate | Judge held the lawyers had shown “undue faith in AI” and, although not wilful, were “over-zealous and careless.” “The embarrassment associated with this incident is probably sufficient punishment for the Plaintiff’s attorneys.” | Lawyer | Link |
| Scott v Federal National Mortgage Ass’n (Me. Supe | US | Jun 23 | Unspecified | fictitious authorities | Complaint dismissed and Rule 11 sanctions ordered | Litigant in Person | link |
Generative AI is evolving rapidly, and so are the legal and ethical standards surrounding its use. By following this tracker you can see how courts across the globe respond to fabricated citations, ranging from mild responses to hefty sanctions. Please keep revisiting. New decisions arrive often, reinforcing the importance of verifying sources and practising diligent, technology-aware advocacy in every jurisdiction, daily.
