Ad/Marketing communication
UK‑based legal commentary and comparative analysis of international case law on AI related legal issues. These AI Law trackers form part of lecturing/teaching law and writing/editing law articles/reports and is communicated solely in connection with promoting or advertising Matthew Lee’s practice. Not legal advice. Not Direct/Public Access. All instructions via clerks at Doughty Street Chambers.
The AI Law Trackers Hub collects all ongoing trackers from Natural & Artificial Intelligence in Law. Each link below points to a maintained index of real cases, judicial commentary, and policy use of artificial intelligence across the justice system.
The AI Law Trackers Hub
The Definitive International Index of Artificial Intelligence in the Courts
The AI Law Trackers Hub monitors the intersection of emerging technology and justice. This is a centralized database of verified legal cases, judicial guidance, and policy developments concerning Large Language Models (LLMs) and automated decision-making systems.
Explore the sevem live trackers below:
1. AI Hallucination Cases Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Fabricated Citations & Case Law A global database of verified court cases where Generative AI (such as ChatGPT) caused “hallucinations”—fake citations, non-existent authorities, or fabricated principles were submitted to court or other cases where or non-AI fabricated/false citations) is to gather broad data about how hallucinations, fabricated citations, whether by AI or otherwise, proven or just alleged, are appearing in courts and reports.
This tracker monitors judicial responses and sanctions for legal professionals who rely on unverified AI outputs.
2. Judicial AI Use Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Fabricated Citations, Alleged AI Use & Hallucinations A global database tracking verified, alleged, and suspected instances of AI hallucinations in court. This includes cases where Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) fabricated citations or evidence, as well as proceedings where fake authorities appeared—whether confirmed as AI-generated or merely suspected. It monitors judicial responses, inquiries into the provenance of non-existent legal authorities, and sanctions for legal professionals.
3. AI Equality, Bias, and Discrimination Case Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Algorithmic Bias, Discrimination & Access to Justice A comprehensive repository of litigation involving AI and equality laws. This tracker monitors challenges to AI systems on grounds of discrimination and algorithmic bias (including automated hiring and facial recognition), while also documenting instances where AI tools have levelled the playing field—improving access to justice and empowering litigants to assert their rights more effectively
4. Government AI Hallucination Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Public Sector Errors Tracking instances where government bodies, agencies, or public sector chat bots have generated false information or hallucinations that impacted citizens or legal rights.
5. Will AI Replace Judges? Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Judicial Commentary & Expert Consensus A curated archive of perspectives from judges, academics, and technologists answering the ultimate question: Can and should AI replace human adjudicators? This tracker aggregates key quotes, speeches, and predictions to map the evolving consensus on the feasibility of “Robot Judges” and automated decision-making in the justice system.
6. Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Future of the Profession & Industry Predictions A centralised repository of diverse viewpoints regarding the obsolescence of the legal profession. This tracker gathers significant quotes, academic theories, and tech industry forecasts to answer whether AI will replace human advocates. It covers the spectrum of debate, from the “end of lawyers” to the evolution of AI-augmented practice.
7. The UK AI Hallucination Cases Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Fabricated Citations & Case Law for the UK only. A database of verified court cases where Generative AI (such as ChatGPT) caused “hallucinations”—fake citations, non-existent authorities, or fabricated principles were submitted to court or other cases where or non-AI fabricated/false citations) is to gather broad data about how hallucinations, fabricated citations, whether by AI or otherwise, proven or just alleged, are appearing in courts and reports.
8. International Deepfake Case Law Database & Litigation Tracker
Status: Active | Focus: Deepfakes in Evidence and Case Law: An International Database. A tracker of court cases from around the world in which AI-generated content, including deepfake images, audio or video, has featured in proceedings, whether as evidence submitted by a party, as the subject of criminal charges, or as the basis of a civil claim. Cases include both proven instances and those where AI generation is alleged or suspected.
9. AI Privilege & Confidentiality Tracker | Global Case Law
Status: Active | Focus: Global tracker of cases and guidance on how AI tools affect legal privilege, work product, and confidentiality. Covering ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and more.
Frequently Asked Questions about AI in Law
Where can I find a list of AI hallucination and fake citation cases?
The AI Hallucination Cases Tracker (AI and non-AI fabricated/false citations on this Hub gathers broad data on how fake citations and fabricated legal principles are appearing in courts and reports globally. It covers verified AI “hallucinations” (where tools like ChatGPT were used), as well as cases where non-existent authorities were submitted, whether the use of AI was proven, alleged, or simply suspected.
Are there official guidelines for judges using AI?
There are some and also some judicial direction. The Judicial AI Use Tracker hosted here compiles judgments, standing orders and practice directions from England & Wales, the United States, and other jurisdictions that dictate how and when judges may use Generative AI.
Has AI successfully replaced any lawyers in court?
While AI tools assist with research, the Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker documents the regulatory blocks and technical failures preventing AI from acting as independent counsel in open court.
Does the AI Equality Tracker only focus on discrimination?
No. While the AI Equality, Bias and Discrimination Case Tracker monitors litigation regarding algorithmic bias and unfairness, it also documents cases where AI tools have been used to level the playing field. We track how technology is being used to improve access to justice and help litigants assert their rights more effectively.
Do you track AI errors in the government or public sector?
Yes. The Government AI Hallucination Tracker monitors instances where public sector chatbots or automated systems have generated false information that impacts citizens. This captures the wider administrative law implications of AI beyond the courtroom.
How can I submit a new case or update to the Hub?
This Hub relies on a global community of legal professionals to stay current. If you have identified a case of AI hallucination, a new judicial guideline, or a relevant quote regarding the future of the profession, please contact us [Link to Contact Page] to have it verified and added to the index.
Will AI replace judges?
The Will AI Replace Judges? Tracker serves as a curated repository of expert consensus on this specific issue. It aggregates key quotes, speeches, and academic theories from around the world to map the evolving debate on the feasibility of “Robot Judges” and the shift toward automated adjudication in the justice system.
Will AI replace lawyers?
This is a central question for the future of the profession. The Will AI Replace Lawyers? Tracker does not just list software; it collects diverse viewpoints and predictions regarding the obsolescence of human advocates. It covers the full spectrum of the argument, from the potential for “Robot Lawyers” to the reality of AI-augmented legal practice.
