Every U.S. case we've verified where a court sanctioned, disciplined, or called to account a lawyer over AI use, written from the court record: what happened, what it cost, and how it could have been avoided. Search by case, attorney, court, or sanction.
175 cases tracked · 112 in federal courts · 63 in state courts, agencies, and boards · 18 graded for how the lawyer responded · 20 entries involve a verified repeat offender
D-173 · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, No. 3:25-cv-198-TJC-LLL, order filed October 9, 2026 (NO COURT-IMPOSED SANCTION; pre-hearing remediation accepted as the suitable remedy)
Response class R1, Owned It Early
Plaintiff's counsel filed a memorandum of law containing at least two fake citations: one case was nonexistent, and another did not contain the quotation attributed to it. Counsel then filed two notices of…
D-172 · Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, No. 4D2025-2599, opinion filed October 7, 2026
Appellants' initial brief relied heavily on a real federal case while falsely attributing admissions and fictional quotations to it, cited a hallucinated case seven times with a fictional quotation, cited…
D-169 · Board of Immigration Appeals, precedent decision published October 1, 2026
Episode 14
Sethi submitted a Ninth Circuit immigration brief containing citations to cases that do not exist (AI hallucinations), failed to verify citations drafted by his firm's unlicensed brief writers before filing,…
D-168 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:25-cv-5947-AS, October 2026 (NO SANCTION; first no-sanction declination with a training-policy warning)
Response class R3, Half-Owned It
Arato apologized and said the citation errors stemmed from another lawyer at her firm who prepared the initial draft and finalized it before filing. In a declaration she said the unnamed lawyer acted "contrary…
D-171 · U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:25-cv-12395-AK, sanctions order filed September 25, 2026 (Judge Angel Kelley)
Episode 12
Lindemann filed an opposition to a motion to strike within five hours of that motion, and later oppositions to motions to dismiss, containing extensive fictitious and misleading citations: cases cited…
D-170 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:26-cv-00327-AMP, order to show cause September 18, 2026 (PENDING)
Pending: no ruling yet
Defense counsel submitted a brief with six inaccurate citations, some to made-up cases, others attributing quotations to real cases that contain no such language. When called out, the lawyer apologized,…
D-167 · No. 4D2026-2262, Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, show-cause order September 16, 2026; RESOLVED October 21, 2026, referred to the Florida Bar for possible discipline (attorney Jaclyn Soroka)
Response class R5, Denied or Doubled Down
The panel said Soroka's filings bore hallmarks of generative-AI output that it called "AI slop", lengthy, unfocused submissions containing "frivolous, scattershot arguments" and prose the court described as…
D-57 · Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 24CMCV01105, sanctions order September 11, 2026 (Judge Elizabeth L. Bradley)
Jacquelene Robinson, a senior associate at Musick, Peeler & Garrett representing State Farm General Insurance Company, prepared pretrial filings (motions in limine, ahead of an October 5 trial) using Irys, an…
D-54 · New Mexico Supreme Court, No. S-1-SC-40845, Dispositional Order of Direct Contempt entered September 9, 2026
Episode 1
After agreeing to take over Sandoval's appeal last year, Aarons used ChatGPT to summarize the trial proceedings and other case materials, then filed the resulting document without any proofreading. The brief…
D-43 · No. ED114731, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Writ Division Four, sanctions order filed September 8, 2026 (Presiding Judge John P. Torbitzky; Judges Lisa P. Page and Michael S. Wright concurring)
Relator's counsel Jenna Rohr Conley filed a writ-of-mandamus petition (seeking transfer of a termination-of-parental-rights/adoption matter to St. Charles County) citing two cases supposedly holding that all…
D-36 · No. 24-CV-1099, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, per curiam order September 3, 2026
Attorney Loishirl W. Hall of McCabe, Weisberg, & Conway, LLC, counsel for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in a mortgage-foreclosure appeal, used Google's generative-AI search tool to locate case law and…
D-166 · Capital Standard v. U.S. Bank - Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, August 21, 2026
Kenneth Keefe used a generative AI tool as his primary or only research tool from the beginning of the appeal. His amended initial brief contained at least 31 AI hallucinations (nonexistent quotations with…
D-165 · JMOR Properties v. Artist Alley Townhomes - Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, August 12, 2026
Barry M. Leff filed a certiorari petition riddled with false citations and arguments, including a nonexistent case purportedly from the Fourth District and an unsupported claim that the court had repeatedly…
D-164 · Barteca Holdings v. Tacobarn - U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, August 4, 2026
Defense counsel Hilary Miller used Open Law, Claude, and ChatGPT to prepare filings, but verified only that the cited cases existed, not the quotations, propositions, or pin cites attributed to them. The court…
D-163 · New York Supreme Court, Kings County, August 4, 2026
The firm's attorney (Kleyman) testified at a June 9, 2026 sanctions hearing that from April 2025 to December 2025 he used "Claude" and other generative AI research platforms to prepare court submissions.…
D-162 · Forney v. Township of Cary - U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, August 3, 2026
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Plaintiff's counsel Lucas Colantonio submitted a brief containing fabricated legal authority, for the second time. After his first transgression, the court had expressly warned him about the consequences of…
D-42 · No. 1:23-cv-24467-KMM, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Report and Recommendation entered August 27, 2026 (Doc. 261)
Plaintiff's counsel included multiple purported IACP "Training Keys" (photo-array procedure materials) in the Fifth Amended Complaint that could not be verified; counsel conceded they were the product of…
D-39 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, sanctions order circa August 28, 2026
Counsel filed fake/hallucinated and misrepresented authorities; at a hearing he denied using AI, then in his show-cause response admitted he had "consulted" AI, the court found repeated lies and repeated Rule…
D-31 · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Memorandum Order August 6, 2026 (Magistrate Judge Luke A. Evans)
Per the account behind this entry, Ringger used Westlaw's AI-generated case-summary feature and quoted language from the AI summary as though it appeared in the judicial opinion itself, without checking the…
D-161 · New York Family Court, Kings County, July 31, 2026
Counsel (anonymized in the opinion as "Mr. C") filed an objection containing 16 citations, of which 11 were fabricated, the product of generative AI. The opinion reviews the growing pattern of attorneys…
D-160 · U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, July 27, 2026
Mitchell used one generative AI tool to draft the plaintiff's portion of a joint claim-construction chart and a second AI tool to review it, in Magpul Industries Corp. v. Mission First Tactical Group, Inc. et…
D-159 · In re Rosslyn2016, LLC - U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, July 14, 2026
Counsel for the petitioning creditors (Mitchell) submitted four motions to quash (ECF Nos. 218 through 221) containing fabricated quotations, nonexistent citations, and invented legal authority. The trustee…
D-53 · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 181 F.4th 1200 (No. 24-11033, opinion by Judge Britt C. Grant, filed July 10, 2026)
Anthony F. Sabatini (Sabatini Law Firm, extra-document detail, per reporting; the opinion names no firm) filed multiple briefs containing fake AI-hallucinated citations: the opening brief alone had at least…
D-52 · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 181 F.4th 1209 (per curiam, No. 25-11166, filed July 10, 2026)
Counsel Dufirstson J. Neree filed a reply brief citing two nonexistent opinions and at least five nonexistent quotations. The court suspected AI hallucinations, and counsel could not explain the source of the…
D-47 · California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, July 10, 2026 (attorney Carlton Floyd)
Appellant's counsel Carlton Floyd filed an opening appellate brief containing multiple fabricated quotations attributed to real California cases, most notably a purported quotation from PLCM Group, Inc. v.…
D-41 · No. 4:25-cv-04217-SLD-RLH, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Judge Sara Darrow
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Plaintiff's counsel David Baldemar Reyes of Equal Access Law Group PLLC (Brooklyn, NY) filed a motion for default judgment in an ADA website-accessibility case containing several citations that appeared…
D-19 · Connecticut Supreme Court, per curiam order July 31, 2026
In a landlord-tenant case, Gottlieb submitted filings containing seven erroneous and unverified citations generated by ChatGPT.
D-18 · Illinois Appellate Court, First District, opinion filed July 28, 2026 (attorney Mason Cole)
Episode 15
Cole admitted using a "premier corporate subscription of ChatGPT" to "synthesize complex matters" and claimed to have cross-referenced citations with LexisNexis, but the briefs contained fabricated quotations…
D-158 · McCormick v. Texakoma Financial - U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, June 11, 2026
Plaintiff's counsel Amy Lynn Bennecoff Ginsburg signed a summary-judgment response drafted by a law clerk. The brief contained fictitious citations, quotations, and unsupported propositions; Ginsburg…
D-157 · Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing - California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two, June 11, 2026
Counsel of record for the plaintiff class (Kevin Lipeles, Thomas Schelly, and Jasmine Badawi of the Lipeles Law Group, APC) delegated an opposition to a motion to stay to contract attorney James Sansone, then…
D-156 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, June 9, 2026
Response class R5, Denied or Doubled Down Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Attorney Alfred Camillo Constants III admitted he did not prepare, review, or file at least one of the plaintiff's motions. Nearly all of the motions in the case bore the hallmarks of AI fabrication:…
D-155 · District Court of Travis County, Texas (250th Judicial District), June 8, 2026
Attorney Bradford Klager admitted to the court that a fake quotation of the Texas Tort Claims Act in his response, containing a nonexistent exception to governmental immunity, was completely fabricated by a…
D-154 · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, June 2, 2026
Legal interns working for drafting attorney Julian Mansoor Daman used Google Gemini to generate text for a habeas petition and traverse; Gemini fabricated quotes and confidently presented them as binding Ninth…
D-153 · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, June 1, 2026
Counsel of record Abdullah Salah signed and submitted two briefs riddled with AI hallucinations, including two dozen fabricated quotations, seven cases wrongly identified as Seventh Circuit precedent,…
D-68 · U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, June 9, 2026
Jane Doe #2's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration containing AI hallucinations; local counsel Jason Guinasso admitted using AI, which produced the hallucinations, while NCOSE attorneys Victoria Hirsch…
D-55 · WCAB, Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration, June 26, 2026 (ADJ17889413)
Response class R2, Owned It Late Episode 8
Defense counsel Ali Vassigh of California Self Insurance Law used the Sullivan on Comp treatise for research and typed specific questions into its AI chatbot, ChatSOC. ChatSOC's answers supplied four improper…
D-9 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, No. 1:24-cv-218, sanctions order filed June 8, 2026 (Senior Judge Sharion Aycock)
Repeat offender (verified in the record) Episode 11
Kathleen M. Wilson (Baton Rouge solo practitioner) used "First Drafts," an AI-powered legal drafting platform, to draft filings including Plaintiff's Opposition [105], which contained two citations to…
D-8 · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, June 3, 2026
Episode 14
The lawyers filed briefs riddled with nonexistent cases, then blamed the errors on "typographical mistakes" and denied AI was responsible. Sethi additionally engaged in "subtle subterfuge" by quietly…
D-152 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, May 21, 2026
Episode 2
Attorney H. Gregory Harp used ChatGPT to draft a filing, submitting four fabricated quotations. He then denied or obscured the AI use when questioned, and deleted his ChatGPT account after the court ordered…
D-151 · Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc. - U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, May 19, 2026
Defense counsel (name not stated in the order) admitted using LexisNexis's AI tool to draft submissions and filing unchecked, hallucinated or irrelevant authorities in a wage-and-hour class action.
D-150 · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, May 13, 2026
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Attorney Rachel Bussett used AI without checking fake and misleading citations in her filings, then made misleading statements to the court attempting to characterize the fabrications as mere formatting errors.
D-149 · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, May 7, 2026
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Attorney Rachel Bussett blamed a legal vendor's AI tool for fake or misleading authorities in her filings and failed to verify them before submission.
D-148 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, May 6, 2026
Attorney Jessica Barsotti filed papers containing fictitious citations the court was concerned suggested AI hallucinations; the court made no finding on their origin, and she then failed to respond to the…
D-147 · U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, May 5, 2026
The plaintiff's client took the lead role in preparing the oppositions and used AI tools in the process, producing record- and case-citation errors. Plaintiff's counsel Frederick Arensmeyer accepted full…
D-146 · U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, May 5, 2026
Attorney Kelly Guagenty, or members of her team, used Claude or ChatGPT to draft an opposition and did not perform a line-by-line citation check, submitting hallucinated or inaccurate authorities.
D-145 · U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, May 4, 2026
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Attorneys Tyler Ares and Amy Martz admitted AI was used to polish/refine their filing; they asserted the AI must have distorted the real cases in their original writing, an explanation the court recorded it…
D-144 · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, May 1, 2026
Jeffrey Sullivan acknowledged using ChatGPT and other AI tools to prepare a filing without independently checking the authorities the tools produced.
D-143 · U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, May 1, 2026
Associate Raquel Aguirre drafted the filings at issue, which contained sixteen fake cases across three briefs; plaintiffs stated they believed Ms. Aguirre used AI but did not know what program she used, and…
D-46 · Supreme Court of Georgia, opinion decided May 5, 2026
Episode 9
Leslie repeatedly filed appellate documents with AI-generated citations that referenced wrong or fictitious cases: at least five citations to cases that did not exist and at least five more that did not…
D-40 · No. 1:24-cv-01918, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, order May 20, 2026 (District Judge Justin R. Olson)
Attorney Tae Sture filed a brief containing two citations he conceded do not exist. He blamed a three-day deadline and said his paralegal (a formerly licensed attorney) drafted the brief, which he filed at…
D-174 · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 26-10769 (MG), Chapter 15, April 2026 (NO COURT-IMPOSED SANCTION; no court order addresses the AI errors, firm apology and corrected filing only) (Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; Andrew G. Dietderich)
Sullivan & Cromwell used AI tools (the letter does not identify which) in preparing the JPLs' Emergency Motion for Entry of Orders Granting (I) Ex Parte Relief and (II) Provisional Relief, Pursuant to Section…
D-142 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, April 30, 2026
Attorney Harry R. Thomasson filed papers containing two fictitious, AI-generated cases. When confronted, he blamed malware and did not show that he had verified the citations before filing.
D-141 · Montgomery County, Ohio, April 30, 2026
Attorney Ghassan Jamal Deek admitted that artificial intelligence was used to produce every filing he had submitted in the case, resulting in numerous citation errors and issues, including a fake "Perrico v.…
D-140 · C.D. California, April 28, 2026
Counsel Gavril T. Gabriel admitted using LexisNexis+ and its drafting feature Protégé to draft portions of his briefs. The fake case "In re Shubert" appeared three times across two summary judgment…
D-139 · Oregon Court of Appeals, April 22, 2026
Appellant's attorney Abby Shearer acknowledged that "generative artificial intelligence was used as a research and drafting aid, and quotations and legal propositions were not independently verified against…
D-138 · Bankr. W.D. Louisiana, April 9, 2026
Repeat offender (verified in the record) Episode 11
Attorney Kathleen M. Wilson admitted using generative AI to create her Objection to Motion for Relief from Stay (ECF #63) and Supplemental Response (ECF #67). The filings contained classic AI hallucinations:…
D-33 · Supreme Court of Alabama, opinion released April 24, 2026
Episode 18
Hall's appellate briefs in a trust dispute contained "numerous nonexistent, invalid, inaccurate, irrelevant, or misquoted authorities" produced through an AI research tool.
D-32 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Opinion and Order filed April 1, 2026 (Chief Judge Holly A. Brady)
Roots filed material containing multiple inaccurate citations and misleading legal characterizations; he admitted he had not fully reviewed the filing before submitting it.
D-175 · Nebraska Supreme Court, No. S-25-295, 321 Neb. 38, opinion filed March 20, 2026 (brief stricken, appeal dismissed, counsel referred for discipline; temporary suspension pending discipline reported April 2026, press-reported, order not located) (W. Gregory Lake)
Response class R5, Denied or Doubled Down
Lake filed Jason's appellate brief on July 31, 2025, signed and certified by him; a replacement brief filed the next day added a missing required section but changed nothing else. The brief, in the court's…
D-137 · D. Arizona, March 31, 2026
Attorneys Sheree Wright and Cortney Walters included at least 18 fictitious citations or fabricated quotations across four pleadings: the initial complaint, the response to the motion to dismiss, the reply in…
D-136 · Third Circuit, March 27, 2026
Attorney Daniel A. Pallen relied on AI-generated research summaries supplied to him by a non-attorney. Seven authorities were materially inaccurate and one did not exist. After the court flagged the problems,…
D-135 · N.D. Alabama, March 26, 2026
Attorney Edward Eugene May II admitted using ChatGPT and OpenCase to prepare filings, producing fabricated quotations that he failed to verify before submission. The fabricated quotations were presented to the…
D-134 · E.D. Michigan, March 23, 2026
Plaintiffs' brief included a citation to a nonexistent "Doe v. Univ. of Mich." decision. Counsel claimed it was an accidentally combined "Frankenstein" citation, but the court found that explanation…
D-133 · E.D. Louisiana, March 20, 2026
Attorney Jalen Harris admitted using ChatGPT and failing to check nine hallucinated citations in a filed brief. His supervisor, James Roquemore, failed to exercise supervisory oversight over the filing. Corwin…
D-132 · N.D. Illinois, March 19, 2026
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Counsel David Reyes admitted relying on AI, failing to cite-check, and submitting fake cases in the litigation. The AI conduct was one of several forms of misconduct the court addressed, which also included…
D-131 · W.D. Louisiana, March 6, 2026
Attorney Kenneth A. Mayeaux admitted using ChatGPT to draft a memorandum in support of a temporary restraining order. He failed to vet the output, which contained fabricated or inaccurate authorities that he…
D-130 · E.D. Louisiana, March 5, 2026
Attorney John R. Walker admitted using generative AI to draft an opposition brief that contained at least eleven nonexistent, misquoted, or mischaracterized authorities. He filed the brief without verifying…
D-16 · Oregon Court of Appeals, March 18, 2026 (Presiding Judge Scott Shorr)
Episode 16
Salem attorney Bill Ghiorso filed an opening brief (November 2024) containing at least 15 fabricated citations and nine fabricated quotations. He blamed his staff/paralegal, whose research relied on Google…
D-6 · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, March 2026 (three related appeals)
Response class R5, Denied or Doubled Down Episode 4
Two lawyers submitted briefs across three appeals containing more than two dozen fake citations and misrepresentations of the record. Rather than acknowledging the problem when the court issued an order to…
D-176 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 24 Civ. 9429 (KPF) (Judge Katherine Polk Failla): sanctions opinion and order filed February 5, 2026 (Doc. 227; case-terminating default judgment against the client, brief stricken); fee opinion and order filed October 9, 2026 (Doc. 364; $38,877.59 in fees and costs against counsel personally) (Steven A. Feldman, counsel for Defendant Affable Avenue LLC)
Response class R5, Denied or Doubled Down
Steven A. Feldman, counsel for Defendant Affable Avenue LLC, filed Affable's brief in support of its motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on June 20, 2025 (Dkt. #153–156) "peppered with false…
D-129 · Kettering Adventist Healthcare v. Sandra Collier, et al. - U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, February 25, 2026
Attorney Mary T. Scott admitted she used generative AI "for preliminary case identification" and mistakenly believed the tools were reliable, filing a motion to dismiss and reply containing AI hallucinations,…
D-128 · California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, February 18, 2026
Attorney David E. Azar asked an AI "consultant" to use AI to prepare a draft opening brief, then used an unidentified "AI system" to shorten the draft while directing it to keep all citations. He did not have…
D-127 · Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026
As a reviewing attorney in federal litigation in the Northern District of Texas, Zareh submitted a brief containing numerous citation errors and misrepresented case law. The district court found the brief was…
D-126 · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, February 9, 2026
Amarsingh admitted she used ChatGPT as a research and drafting aid for her appellate brief. The tool generated seven fabricated case citations, and she also misattributed propositions and quotations to two…
D-125 · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, February 6, 2026
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
David Stich filed a brief containing AI-generated quotes from legal authorities that did not contain those quotes, including fabricated language attributed to Pineda v. Frisolino, Inc.. He admitted he did not…
D-37 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Report and Recommendation February 12, 2026 (Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore)
Policchio, a solo Indianapolis practitioner, filed five briefs containing citations to nonexistent cases. He told the court he had underestimated the workload of litigating against dozens of defendants, was…
D-34 · U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, sanctions order February 2, 2026 (Judge Julie A. Robinson)
The team filed a response to a motion to exclude expert testimony containing nonexistent quotations, misrepresentations of cited authority, and nonexistent or incorrect citations, including fabricated…
D-4 · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 25-20086, filed February 18, 2026
Response class R4, Dodged It Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Hersh admittedly used vLex and Thomson Reuters' CoCounsel to draft much of a reply brief in a Fair Credit Reporting Act appeal, then failed to verify the content. The brief contained 16 fabricated quotations…
D-124 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, January 26, 2026
New York attorney Yen-Yi Anderson (appearing pro hac vice) and local counsel Jeffrey J. Goldin signed a motion to dismiss containing at least eight false case citation hallucinations generated by artificial…
D-44 · No. 2024CV04386, State Court of Clayton County, Georgia, sanctions order on/around January 14, 2026 (Judge Tammy Long Hayward)
Plaintiff's counsel Tristan Gillespie filed multiple briefs (opposition to motion to open default, opposition to summary judgment, motion to withdraw admissions) containing fictitious, hallucinated, or grossly…
D-27 · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, sanctions order following January 13, 2026 hearing
Plaintiff's counsel admittedly filed briefs in two cases containing AI-generated fake citations.
D-12 · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, 2026
Plaintiff's counsel filed at least five filings containing "dozens of inaccurate factual and legal citations." She also participated in preparing expert reports: one expert's report contained AI-generated…
D-7 · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2026
Episode 6
Counsel used a generative-AI platform to draft two briefs containing fabricated quotations attributed to real cases and misrepresentations of those cases' holdings.
D-5 · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2026
Counsel's briefs in an employment-discrimination appeal cited three nonexistent cases. After the panel discovered one of them and ordered a revised brief and a show-cause response, his reply brief cited two…
D-123 · U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, December 30, 2025
Attorney Bryce Finley admitted that five authorities cited in his filings were nonexistent and were products of AI allegedly used by his paralegal. He filed the briefs without verifying the citations.
D-122 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, December 19, 2025
Attorney Jane Watson used the AI tool Grok without any verification, producing one nonexistent citation and multiple misrepresented case holdings in a brief. Attorney Nick Norris signed and reviewed the brief…
D-121 · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, December 18, 2025
Attorney Lev Ivan Gabriel Iwashko relied on Google-generated summaries that he said he did not realize were AI-generated. His opposition contained two fictitious cases and eight grossly mischaracterized…
D-120 · (McMillian v. Zimmer US, Inc.) - U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, December 16, 2025
Plaintiff's counsel filed papers containing AI-generated hallucinations and inaccuracies in their December 4 filings. Counsel conceded that sanctions were warranted.
D-119 · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, December 15, 2025
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Attorney Tyrone A. Blackburn used AI and incorporated the nonexistent case United States v. Masha plus fabricated legal propositions into a filing. He failed to verify the citations even after opposing counsel…
D-118 · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, December 8, 2025 (filed December 17, 2025)
Attorney Matthew V. Moosbrugger used "Federally Lawyer," an add-on to enterprise ChatGPT, to prepare a filing. He did not independently verify the citations; instead he asked ChatGPT whether the authorities…
D-117 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, December 5, 2025
The opinion states that the College's initial brief contained AI-generated case citations and AI-generated factual representations. By order of November 24, 2025, the court denied the College leave to amend,…
D-116 · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California, December 5, 2025
Attorney Deepalie Milie Joshi used generative AI to prepare a motion and failed to verify any of the citations the tool produced. The filing included nonexistent authorities (including a nonexistent In re…
D-115 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, December 5, 2025
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Attorney Danielle Malaty, then a partner at Goldberg Segalla LLP, used ChatGPT for research and drafting on three defense motions, producing fictitious authority including the nonexistent Mack v. Anderson…
D-114 · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, December 4, 2025
Plaintiff's counsel Michael McBride confirmed at a September 3, 2025 hearing that he used ChatGPT to draft his response to a motion to dismiss, which cited nonexistent cases. He deflected responsibility to his…
D-113 · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, December 3, 2025
Defendant Tony Pirani (and Pirani Law PA) filed motions in limine containing citations to nonexistent cases and quotations of nonexistent case law passages, which the court had already stricken as AI…
D-25 · Florida Second District Court of Appeal, No. 2D2024-1560, December 10, 2025
McLane's answer brief contained three case citations: one, Cade v. Roberts, 403 So. 2d 516, did not exist at all ("No such case exists," ORDER, p. 7), and the two real cases were misquoted. Ordered to show…
D-15 · U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Opinion and Order filed December 12, 2025 (Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke)
Episode 13
San Diego-based attorney Stephen Brigandi filed documents filled with fake cases and fabricated citations; Portland attorney Tim Murphy served a procedural local-counsel role (Brigandi was not licensed in…
D-10 · N.D. Miss., sanctions order filed December 19, 2025 (Senior Judge Sharion Aycock)
Attorney Greta Kemp Martin submitted legal memoranda containing fabricated case citations and nonexistent quotations. Judge Aycock said she was "highly suspicious" that Martin used an AI tool to generate the…
D-112 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, November 21, 2025
Plaintiff's counsel Missiva Tilleli Khacer (Florida Bar) signed and filed a response containing at least ten instances of nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations. She had delegated drafting to attorney…
D-111 · In re Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc. - U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama, November 20, 2025
Response class R5, Denied or Doubled Down Response class R2, Owned It Late Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Attorney Cassie D. Preston filed a motion to reconsider, a supplemental brief, and a joint response containing fabricated quotations, mis-citations, and misstatements of existing case law generated through…
D-110 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, November 20, 2025
Attorney James Dal Bon used approximately six different AI tools, having them cross-check each other, and filed briefing containing one nonexistent case and eight fabricated quotations. He admitted the AI use…
D-109 · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, November 17, 2025
Attorney Jeffrey Dean Grotke admitted using AI to regenerate the appellant's opening brief (and possibly the writ), resulting in four spurious citations. He attributed the errors to clerical mistakes, but the…
D-108 · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, November 17, 2025
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Attorney David P. Stich used Descrybe.AI, an AI-based legal research tool, to draft his briefing and filed multiple fabricated authorities without checking whether they existed or supported his positions.
D-107 · Vermont Supreme Court, November 13, 2025
Attorney Donald P. LoCascio filed a brief containing a purported quotation generated by his client's "AI helper." He submitted the quotation without reading the authority it was supposedly taken from, and the…
D-106 · New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, November 10, 2025
Attorney Sungchan Cho used AI in preparing a summary-judgment motion and relied on a nonexistent case (identified in the decision as the "Landry" case), filing the motion without confirming the authority…
D-105 · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, November 4, 2025
Response class R4, Dodged It
Attorney Derrick D. King filed pleadings containing 32 AI-derived authorities that were nonexistent or materially misrepresented, supplied by his client and filed without verification. The filings violated the…
D-104 · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, November 3, 2025
Attorney Brian M. Cige filed a brief containing two nonexistent cases that his client had supplied from ChatGPT. He presented them to the court without verifying they existed or supported his arguments.
D-82 · W.D. Wash., November 7, 2025
Attorney Oscar E. Desper III filed three papers containing hallucinated case and record citations and legal errors consistent with unverified generative AI use, including at least four quotations attributed to…
D-38 · No. 3:25-cv-00105-TES, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Judge Tilman E. Self III
Counsel for plaintiff Medical Buyers Group, LLC d/b/a Integrity (identified in the orders as Jason Gordon) admitted using hallucinated cases in responses to motions to dismiss. Before the hearing he took…
D-103 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, October 30, 2025
Attorney Arleesha Wilson filed a brief containing four nonexistent cases and seven real cases misrepresented (each twice), bearing hallmarks of generative AI use. In her show-cause response she included…
D-102 · Appellate Court of Maryland, October 29, 2025
Mother's counsel's nonlawyer law clerk used ChatGPT and VLex (along with CourtListener and CaseMine) to research and draft the appellate brief, producing a brief containing multiple fictitious, misquoted, and…
D-101 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, October 28, 2025
Hale filed a summary judgment response brief in which an overwhelming majority of the cited cases either did not exist, did not support the cited proposition, or misquoted the authority. The court found the…
D-100 · Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, October 23, 2025
Counsel for appellant Huffman Construction, S. Leo Arnold and Matthew W. Willis of Arnold, Willis & Conway, used "AI technology to assist in formulating portions of [Huffman's] reply brief, including…
D-99 · Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, October 23, 2025
Trieu filed an opposition to a peremptory exception containing three entirely fabricated cases (one central to the plaintiff's argument), a doctored quotation from a real case, and misrepresented holdings of…
D-98 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, October 22, 2025
Across eleven pleadings, plaintiffs' counsel submitted 28 false or misleading citations: 14 fabricated and 14 erroneous or misquoted. Drafting and signing attorney Harrison A. Howle admitted he used ChatGPT to…
D-97 · District Court of Nebraska, Douglas County, October 17, 2025
Attorney James E. Harris of Harris & Associates, P.C., L.L.O., counsel for plaintiffs, filed briefs containing multiple fabricated and hallucinated citations generated by AI. At the show cause hearing he…
D-96 · Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, October 15, 2025
Plaintiff's counsel (unnamed in the order) cited two nonexistent cases, "Edwards v. Hearst Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 30, 43" and "Heath v. San Joaquin Comm. Hosp. Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 708, 713-14," in his…
D-95 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, October 10, 2025
Response class R3, Half-Owned It
Attorney James A. Johnson, counsel for defendant Glennie McGee, admitted that he used "Ghostwriter," an AI program that appeared in the sidebar of Microsoft Word, to draft a motion. The motion contained…
D-94 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, October 10, 2025
Attorney Edward A. Quesada, counsel for plaintiff, filed briefs containing fictitious case citations. He declared that he did not knowingly use AI, but his explanation was that he had copied and pasted…
D-93 · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, October 3, 2025
Attorney Glenn Ellis, counsel for the relator, used an AI legal research tool (identified on the public docket as Lexis Protégé / Lexis+ AI, ECF No. 196, Stage 2, full-pass) to identify authorities for an…
D-92 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, October 2, 2025
Attorney Pius A. Obioha, counsel for plaintiff, signed and filed a memorandum in opposition to a motion for partial summary judgment without verifying its citations. The brief cited a fabricated, AI-generated…
D-91 · Supreme Court of New York, New York County, October 1, 2025
Defendants' counsel, Michael William Charles Fourte of the Law Offices of Michael Fourte, included an AI-hallucinated citation and quotations in a summary judgment brief, then included multiple new…
D-90 · Iowa Court of Appeals, October 1, 2025
Counsel for the mother, attorney Cathleen J. Siebrecht of the Siebrecht Law Firm, filed a reply brief containing citations to cases and statutes that do not exist and inaccurate quotations from real…
D-48 · Texas District Court, Travis County, 419th Judicial District, No. D-1-GN-25-001604, order signed October 22, 2025 (Judge Maya Guerra Gamble; attorney Lawrence Chang)
Plaintiff's counsel Lawrence Chang (Choate & Associates PC) filed a motion for reconsideration containing AI-generated citations that did not exist or had been altered. Chang first blamed "over-reliance" on a…
D-3 · California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, filed October 2, 2025
In People v. Alvarez, defense counsel LeRoy George Siddell, opposing a motion to dismiss the appeal, cited one nonexistent case, fabricated a quotation attributed to In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72, 87–88,…
D-89 · Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Mississippi, September 26, 2025
Attorney Vanessa Price, counsel for plaintiffs, filed a responsive pleading relying on 14 nonexistent or inapposite authorities generated through an AI research tool. She acknowledged the fabricated citations…
D-88 · U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, September 22, 2025
Attorney Boglarka Foghi, counsel for plaintiff, admitted that unreviewed AI use by her paralegal and another contractor was the only explanation for nonexistent cases and fictional quotations appearing in her…
D-87 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, September 18, 2025
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Attorneys Jennifer DeMaster and Chris Kachouroff filed summary judgment briefs containing pervasive legal and factual misrepresentations. They had first-hand experience in Coomer v. Lindell (D. Colo., July…
D-86 · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, September 12, 2025
Attorney Daniel H. Ngai of Luther & Lanard, PC admitted that his firm used AI to generate the citations in a brief and then failed to verify them, filing inaccurate and fictitious authorities with the court.
D-85 · Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County, Minnesota, September 8, 2025
Response class R3, Half-Owned It
Attorney David Lutz, counsel for the defendants, filed supporting and reply briefs on the defendants' summary-judgment motion containing fake legal authority generated with an AI tool. (Plaintiffs' counsel was…
D-84 · Nev. 2d Jud. Dist. Ct., Washoe Cnty., September 10, 2025
Attorneys Daniel Mann and Jan Tomasik of Cozen O'Connor (identified in secondary coverage as Daniel A. Mann and Jan K. Tomasik; the sanctions order gives no middle initials) filed a brief containing at least…
D-83 · N.D. Cal., September 5, 2025
Attorney Katherine Cervantes used Westlaw's CoCounsel, an AI research tool, to help draft her client's portion of a joint discovery letter brief and failed to verify a fabricated citation to nonexistent law.…
D-2 · California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, filed September 12, 2025 (114 Cal.App.5th 426)
Episode 5
Plaintiff's counsel Amir Mostafavi used ChatGPT and other AI tools to "enhance" his appellate briefs and never verified the output. Twenty-one of the 23 case quotations in the opening brief were fabricated,…
D-81 · Bankr. D.S.C., August 27, 2025
Attorney Paul L. Held used Microsoft CoPilot, a generative AI platform, to draft a filing and included citations to two nonexistent cases without verifying them before filing on CM/ECF. He relied on short…
D-80 · Betancourt Gómez v. Colegio de Profesionales de la Enfermería de Puerto Rico, P.R. Ct. of First Instance, San Juan, August 22, 2025
Attorneys María V. Irizarry Centeno and Anissa Michelle Bonilla Irizarry, counsel for co-defendant Tomás Alvarado Colón, filed a dismissal motion containing at least six fictitious case references and direct…
D-79 · E.D. La., August 13, 2025
Laci N. Hamilton, counsel for the plaintiff, signed and filed a motion to transfer venue containing three fabricated, AI-generated citations without verifying their accuracy or existence. In her reply she…
D-78 · E.D.N.Y., August 7, 2025
Plaintiff's counsel filed an opposition brief containing fictitious legal citations. The court found counsel "relied upon AI-generated content that created fictitious legal citations," in violation of Rule 11.…
D-24 · Florida Second District Court of Appeal, opinion filed August 29, 2025
A brief prepared with a paralegal's AI assistance misrepresented the holdings of opinions nine times, fabricated quotations from opinions ten times, and cited a case that does not exist.
D-77 · N.D. Cal., July 30, 2025
Plaintiffs' counsel Keith Mathews admitted he used ChatGPT to generate in its entirety an exhibit (a petition seeking to end Apple's suppression of free speech and demanding the CEO's resignation) and…
D-76 · N.Y. Civ. Ct., Queens Cnty., July 29, 2025
Attorney Innocent O. Chinweze used Microsoft Copilot to assist his research. His April 21, 2025 affirmation cited seven fictitious cases; he acknowledged he used Copilot on the night of April 9, 2025 and did…
D-75 · E.D. Mich., July 28, 2025
Plaintiffs' counsel filed responsive briefings containing real case citations paired with fabricated quotations and explanatory parentheticals generated by artificial intelligence that did not accurately…
D-74 · S.D. Tex., July 23, 2025
Attorney Edward L. Piña filed a brief whose case citations were produced by his law clerk using generative artificial intelligence tools. Piña acknowledged that he failed to verify the accuracy of the…
D-73 · D. Mass., July 2025
Christopher M. Cervantes, principal of Cervantes Law, P.C. and counsel for plaintiff Vita Law Offices, told the court he inadvertently used Microsoft Copilot, an AI-based tool, which altered quoted language in…
D-72 · Bankr. N.D. Ill., July 18, 2025
Attorney Thomas E. Nield of The Semrad Law Firm, LLC filed a brief containing fake quotations and nonexistent authority manufactured by artificial intelligence. Nield used ChatGPT to prepare the brief without…
D-71 · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, July 14, 2025
Plaintiff's counsel Brian Braddy filed a response to a motion to dismiss containing AI-hallucinated case citations. He admitted he had used AI to prepare the response, said the filed version was never intended…
D-70 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, July 9, 2025
Dennis Desmarais used the generative AI tool Claude Sonnet 4 to "assist with research and drafting" a supplemental brief in an emergency habeas matter. The brief contained machine-fabricated legal quotations.…
D-56 · WCAB panel decision, 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 193; sanctions order July 29, 2025
Defense counsel filed a petition for reconsideration riddled with defects: it failed to state the material evidence and cite the evidentiary record (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(b)), attached 81 pages of…
D-35 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, sanctions order July 23, 2025 (Judge Anna M. Manasco)
Episode 17
Reeves used ChatGPT to find legal authorities and filed them without verification; Cranford and Lunsford signed or supervised the filings without independent review. Five fabricated citations appeared across…
D-26 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, sanctions order entered July 17, 2025
Paul filed seven submissions across this and other courts containing hallucinated cases and fabricated quotations, including in a response to an order to show cause about his AI use, after the problem had…
D-17 · Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, filed July 21, 2025 (attorney William T. Panichi)
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Appointed November 4, 2024, to handle a parental-rights termination appeal, Panichi used AI to draft the brief and filed it with multiple nonexistent cases. The court found he "intentionally generated briefs…
D-69 · Massachusetts Superior Court (Middlesex), June 25, 2025
Defendant's counsel used ChatGPT to check spelling, grammar, and formatting of her motions in limine and proposed jury instructions, but ChatGPT altered the filings beyond that: citations to cases that do not…
D-67 · Utah Court of Appeals, May 22, 2025
An unlicensed law clerk employed by the petitioner's law firm used ChatGPT to draft the petition for interlocutory appeal, which contained fabricated legal authority. Douglas M. Durbano and Richard A. Bednar…
D-50 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 17-CV-81140, 2025 WL 1440351 (Magistrate Judge William Matthewman, May 20, 2025)
A hallucinated citation remained in a filing even after opposing counsel flagged it, and counsel withdrew it about two weeks later without explanation, explaining fully only the same day the court ordered an…
D-45 · No. 2:24-cv-05205-FMO-MAA, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, sanctions order dated May 5, 2025, filed May 6, 2025 (Special Master Hon. Michael R. Wilner, U.S. Magistrate Judge (Ret.))
Episode 10
Trent Copeland of Ellis George used Google Gemini and Westlaw's AI features to generate an "outline" for a supplemental brief on in camera review of disputed privilege documents. The outline contained bogus…
D-14 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, May 28, 2025 (Judge James Patrick Hanlon)
Rafael Ramirez of Rio Hondo, Texas, representing an Indiana excavation company in a multiemployer-benefit-fund dispute, admitted using generative AI to draft briefs that included "hallucination cites" to at…
D-177 · U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, Civil No. 23-1203 (RAM), Rule 11 sanctions: liability order April 10, 2025; fee order September 23, 2025 ($24,492.10 against plaintiffs' counsel José R. Olmo-Rodriguez and Ibrahim Reyes)
Response class R5, Denied or Doubled Down
Plaintiffs' counsel (José R. Olmo-Rodriguez and Ibrahim Reyes; PRESS-ONLY firm identifications: Reyes Lawyers PA and Olmo & Rodriguez Matias Law Office PSC, per Bloomberg Law) submitted four filings on March 9…
D-66 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, April 24, 2025
Response class R2, Owned It Late
Victoria Hovsepyan used the AI platform ChatOn, which she had never before used for legal work, to draft a reply in support of a motion to remand. She pasted ChatOn's output into a sworn affirmation submitted…
D-65 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, April 10, 2025
Attorney Nicholas L. Palazzo cited nonexistent or mismatched authorities that appeared to be AI hallucinations "made up of parts of actual cases." He failed to comply with Judge Baylson's standing order on…
D-64 · U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, April 2, 2025
Felipe D.J. Millan purchased a response brief from LAWCLERK attorney Janelle M. Lewis for $750, minimally edited it, and filed it without reading the case law or verifying the citations. The brief cited at…
D-63 · Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Williamson County, Illinois, April 2, 2025
Attorney Scott Walker of SK Walker Law, LLC twice cited a nonexistent case, "Hauter v. DeWitt, 73 Ill.App. 3d 263," including with a purported quotation from it, in responses to motions to dismiss. Walker…
D-62 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, March 21, 2025
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
In a footnote in the March 21, 2025 opinion on summary judgment, the court recorded that it had previously admonished plaintiff's counsel at a hearing for including AI-generated bogus legal citations in the…
D-51 · U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, No. 2:23-cv-118-KHR, sanctions order February 24, 2025 (Judge Kelly Rankin), 348 F.R.D. 489
Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion in limine containing AI-hallucinated cases. In their own February 10, 2025 response, counsel admitted: "Our internal artificial intelligence platform 'hallucinated' the cases…
D-13 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (attorney Raja Rajan)
Response class R3, Half-Owned It Response class R4, Dodged It Repeat offender (verified in the record) Episode 3
After an initial $2,500 sanction for including AI-hallucinated citations, Rajan filed an omnibus motion (on costs/sanctions issues) that again contained AI-generated citations the opposing party flagged.
D-28 · Supreme Court of Florida, No. SC2024-0611, order filed January 16, 2025
The AI-citation conduct sits in the federal predicates, in the Middle District matter (D-29), Neusom filed materials with fabricated AI-generated authorities. In the Florida proceeding, the referee recorded a…
D-21 · Minnesota Supreme Court, No. A24-0055, November 27, 2024
Counsel cited a fictitious case in a filing (the sanctions order itself is not public; the account rests on the located secondary source and documents quoting the order). The order cited ABA Formal Opinion 512…
D-61 · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 30, 2024
Plaintiff's counsel used undisclosed generative AI in a motion to remand that contained a fabricated case and fabricated quotations attributed to the complaint. The court found repeated violations of its rules…
D-22 · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, July 24, 2024 (2024 WL 3520170)
Response class R2, Owned It Late
Counsel filed papers containing multiple unlocatable cases and quotations, described in the defendant's opposition brief as "ChatGPT run amok" (quoted at p. 14 of the court's opinion).
D-29 · U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Opinion and Order entered March 8, 2024
Per the Maryland State Bar Association's reporting on the matter, Neusom filed materials with inaccurate (AI-generated) authorities without verifying citations, repeatedly ignored local rules and court…
D-60 · Massachusetts Superior Court (Norfolk), February 12, 2024
Plaintiff's counsel filed several legal memoranda opposing the defendants' motions to dismiss that cited and relied on wholly fictitious case law ("Fictitious Case Citations"). When questioned at a December 7,…
D-59 · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, January 30, 2024
Attorney Jae S. Lee admitted that she used ChatGPT for case identification after failing to find a decision supporting her argument. ChatGPT suggested a decision that did not exist, and Lee cited it in her…
D-49 · Ohio Court of Appeals, 11th District, Case No. 2024-A-0040, 2026-Ohio-965 (280 N.E.3d 1042)
In an application to reopen an appeal, respondent's counsel submitted fabricated transcript quotations attributed to the prosecutor. The opinion's factual findings state the quotations "were generated by…
D-30 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Wyoming matters covered under D-51)
Repeat offender (verified in the record)
Both matters involved AI-hallucinated filings submitted without verification.
D-20 · Missouri Court of Appeals, 2024 (692 S.W.3d 43)
Karlen, who had counsel at trial but represented himself on appeal (with a hired online 'consultant'), filed briefs containing 22 fabricated citations and statutory errors traceable to unverified AI-generated…
D-58 · Colorado Supreme Court, Presiding Disciplinary Judge, November 21, 2023
Zachariah C. Crabill, licensed in Colorado in 2021, used ChatGPT to "bolster" the legal authorities in a motion to set aside a $31,350 default judgment. He did not read the cases ChatGPT supplied, and did not…
D-1 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, June 22, 2023 (678 F. Supp. 3d 443)
Response class R5, Denied or Doubled Down
Two lawyers (Peter LoDuca and Steven Schwartz of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman) used ChatGPT to draft an opposition brief containing citations to six or more nonexistent cases, with fabricated quotes and…
No case matches that search yet. If it's a real case, it may be one we haven't found. Send us a tip.