While attorneys are not required to become AI experts, they should have a reasonable understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the specific AI technology they use in the practice of law. ABA Comm. on Ethics & Pro. Resp., Formal Op. 512 (2024). Attorneys must "stop, look, and listen" before signing a document subject to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Lieb v. Topstone Indus., Inc., 788 F.2d 151, 157 (3d Cir. 1987). Rule 11 provides that legal claims must be based on existing law or present a valid argument for changing the law. Accordingly, Rule 11 requires attorneys to verify the existence and validity of the legal authorities on which they rely. Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024). Several cases, beginning with Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, (S.D.N.Y. 2023), created a compendium of cautionary tales warning against blind reliance on AI assistance for lawyering tasks.
Dismissal, monetary sanctions, award of attorney's fees, referrals for disciplinary action, and the exclusion of evidence have been used to discourage blind reliance on AI-generated content. Attorneys must understand both the capabilities and limitations of AI. They should “stop, look, and listen” before submitting legal documents and recognize that the appearance of credibility does not replace the need for thorough authentication and verification. As the legal landscape continues to evolve with the integration of AI, it is essential for attorneys to prioritize ethical practices and maintain a deep understanding of the various risks associated with AI.
* Apologies to John Keats (La Belle Dame Sans Merci)
| Two cases from the Southern District of New York set the tone for considering sanctions when attorneys used AI-generated unverified case citations. In both cases, the courts exercised discretion in imposing sanctions (Mata) and declining to impose sanctions (Cohen). In both cases, the courts considered traditional jurisprudential standards for Rule 11 from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules. |
| Mata v. Avianca, Inc. |
| The ruling in Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) launched a niche area of sanctions for AI-generated citation fabrications. In Mata, the attorneys were sanctioned after submitting fake judicial opinions with fabricated quotes and citations, with one attorney found to have acted in bad faith for not verifying the cited cases and another attorney for intentionally avoiding confirmation of their existence. Id. at 448, 464–66. At the outset, the court observed “[m]any harms flow from the submission of fake opinions” before conducting a deep examination of the filings at issue. Id. at 448 (the court's findings of fact covered ten pages in the reported decision). The court's analysis of the attorneys' conduct under the standards set forth by Rule 11 was equally comprehensive. Id. at 459-66. Ultimately, the court concluded that a penalty of $5,000 was sufficient “to advance the goals of specific and general deterrence.” Id. at 466. |
| United States v. Cohen |
| After pleading guilty to evading income taxes, lying to banks and Congress, and violating campaign finance laws, the defendant filed several motions for early termination of his term of supervised release. United States v. Cohen, 724 F. Supp. 3d 251, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2024). The fourth motion raised the question whether sanctions should be imposed for that motion's citation to three non-existent cases. Id. In the motion, the defendant's counsel cited and described three ‘‘examples’’ of decisions granting early termination of supervised release that the Second Circuit allegedly affirmed. Id. at 254. The defendant (a disbarred attorney) obtained the cases using Google Bard and provided the cases to counsel, who included the cases in the motion. Id. The defendant believed Google Bard to be a ‘‘super-charged search engine," and not a generative AI service like Chat-GPT. Id. The defendant "trusted" that counsel would vet the additions before including them in the motion. Id. at 254-55. The court considered whether the defendant's counsel acted in bad faith to determine whether sanctions should be imposed. Id. at 258. The court explained that it could only impose sanctions under its inherent authority if there is clear and convincing evidence that a party or counsel knowingly submitted a materially false or misleading filing or knowingly failed to correct false statements. Id. Importantly, this must be part of a deliberate and unconscionable scheme to obstruct the court’s ability to adjudicate the case fairly. Id. While the court found counsel's citation to non-existent cases to be embarrassing and certainly negligent (perhaps even grossly negligent), it ruled that sanctions would not be imposed on counsel. Id. at 258-59. In reaching a decision, the court noted that while the defendant was not subject to the show cause order regarding sanctions, the court opined that sanctions would not be warranted. Id. at 259. The court noted that the defendant was a party to the case and, as a disbarred attorney, was not an officer of the court. Id. Thus, he was entitled to rely on his counsel and to trust his counsel’s professional judgment. Id. |
| Coomer v. Lindell (U.S. District Court—Colorado) |
|
Allegations of janky AI arose in a former Dominion Voting Systems executive's defamation case against MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. See Thy Vo, Judge Orders MyPillow Attys To Explain AI Use, Fake Citations, Law360 (Apr. 23, 2025). With the trial approaching, the defendants’ brief in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion in limine roused suspicion when the court identified nearly 30 defective citations. Coomer v. Lindell, No. 22-cv-01129, at *3 (D. Colo. Apr. 23, 2025), ECF No. 309. The court noted several errors in the brief, including misquotations of cited cases and misrepresentations of legal principles related to those cases. Id. This included discussions of the legal principles not appearing in the decisions cited. Id. There were also inaccuracies concerning whether certain case law originated from a binding authority, such as the Tenth Circuit, and misattributions of case law to the District Court of Colorado. Id. Most notably, the court highlighted the "most egregious" error, which was the citation of cases that do not exist. Id. Even though the court presented the opportunity to explain how the brief was replete with such fundamental errors, the defendants' counsel declined to offer any explanation. Id. After much obfuscation, the court directly asked the defendants' counsel if the brief was a product of GAI; only then did counsel admit to the use of GAI. Id. at *4. The court ordered the defendants, the law firm representing the defendants, and the individual attorneys to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed and why the individual attorneys should not be referred for disciplinary proceedings. Id. at *5-6. Per the court's ruling, the defendants' counsel must show cause in writing by May 5, 2025. Id. at 6. Meanwhile, the defendants sought to delay a June defamation trial because of the pending sanctions determination for using phony case citations. Defendants' Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify Pretrial Order, Coomer, No. 22-cv-01129 (D. Colo. Apr. 28, 2025), ECF No. 312. See also Robin Shea, AI hallucinations cause bad trip for lawyers, JDSupra (May 2, 2025). Docket. |
| Puerto Rico Soccer League NFP, Corp. v. Federacion Puertorriquena de Futbol (U.S. District Court—Puerto Rico) |
|
In Puerto Rico Soccer League NFP, Corp. v. Federacion Puertorriquena de Futbol, No. 23-cv-01203 (D.P.R. Apr. 26, 2023), ECF No. 1, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to restrict sanctioned tournaments and matches in Puerto Rico, thereby stifling competition and limiting the growth of independent leagues. The plaintiffs filed several documents leading up to a settlement conference. See Puerto Rico Soccer League, No. 23-cv-01203, ECF Nos. 160, 174-177. Subsequently, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs utilized GAI and cited non-existent or erroneous authorities in their recent court submissions. Puerto Rico Soccer League, No. 23-cv-01203 (Mar. 19, 2025), ECF No. 187. Upon conducting an independent review, the court found that four of the plaintiffs' motions contained multiple incorrect citations referencing cases that could not be located and presumably do not exist. Id. The court acknowledged that the use of GAI was not prohibited; however, attorneys have a duty to demonstrate competence to their clients and a duty of candor to the tribunal. Id. Consequently, the court ordered the plaintiffs to file a memorandum explaining why sanctions should not be imposed on them for violations of Rule 11 and professional conduct standards. Id. In response, the plaintiffs proclaimed that AI was not used in drafting the filings at issue; rather, the various errors occurred due to "human oversight under significant time constraints." Puerto Rico Soccer League, No. 23-cv-01203, at *3 (Apr. 10, 2025), ECF No. 206 (internal quotations omitted). The court found the plaintiffs struck "a defiant and deflective tone" in their response, and was not persuaded by their arguments to avoid sanctions. Id. at * 6, 9. According to the court, "[w]hether generative artificial intelligence was used or not is immaterial, what matters is that the Plaintiffs provided the Court with a litany of inaccurate information in support of their claims." Id. at *7. In its opinion and order, the court meticulously scrutinized the 55 erroneous citations contained in the plaintiffs' filings. Id. at *11-37. in considering sanctions, the court reflected that an award of attorney's fees would be appropriate, in part, given the "time and energy required by Defendants and the Court to fact-check Plaintiffs' filings." Id. at *5, 8. Accordingly, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' fees incurred related to the filings at issue. Id. at *10. The court granted the defendants 21 days to submit an itemized attorney's fee application. Id. Pursuant to the court's order, the defendants submitted an application for attorney fees. FIFA’s Application For Attorneys’ Fees, Puerto Rico Soccer League, No. 23-cv-01203 (May 5, 2025), ECF No. 235. The amount of attorney time and dollar amounts were redacted in the defendants' application. Id. at 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 12-13. However, a formatting error in the application revealed that the defendants sought more than $50,000 for time spent in responding to the plaintiffs' AI-hallucination-riddled filings. The court ordered the defendants to respond to the plaintiff's attorney fee application by June 18, 2025. Puerto Rico Soccer League, No. 23-cv-01203 (May 7, 2025), ECF No. 239. See also Madison Arnold, FIFA Seeks Fees After Citation Mistakes In Antitrust Case, Law360 (May 2, 2025). Docket. |
| Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (U.S. District Court—Eastern District of New York) |
|
In Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 24-cv-7399, 2025 WL 582733, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2025), the plaintiff's reply brief cited nonbinding, out-of-circuit cases from federal courts without citing a single decision from the district court in which this case was pending. After thoroughly examining the brief, the court found that five of the seven cases cited by the plaintiff's attorney in the brief were non-existent. Id. The court expressed "serious concerns" that the attorney appeared to make misrepresentations in a sworn affirmation by citing non-existent cases or failed to diligently cite check the submission. Id. at *2. The court ordered the attorney to provide copies of all cases cited in the plaintiff's filings (including the brief at issue) by February 28, 2025. Id. The attorney subsequently admitted that the cases in the offending brief did not exist and should not have been cited. Declaration Regarding Cases Cited in Plaintiff’s Memoranda, Benjamin, No. 24-cv-7399, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2025), ECF No. 30. In the subsequent order imposing sanctions, the court noted clients expect their attorneys to vigorously pursue their cases, make persuasive arguments, and work efficiently, while courts expect attorneys' submissions to be accurate and supported by appropriate legal authority. Benjamin, No. 24-cv-7399, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2025), ECF No. 36. The court found: "None of that happened here." Id. The plaintiff's counsel explained how the brief was prepared and admitted that she used ChatOn to produce the brief, which included five phony case citations. Id. at *5-6. Further, she spent 20 minutes reviewing ChatOn's work and did not check any of the AI-generated cases. Id. at *8. In a lengthy 17-page order, the court found that counsel's "conduct was undoubtedly grossly negligent," and that she acted in subjective bad faith. Id. at *14, 16. The court also recognized that counsel repeatedly expressed remorse, this appears to be her sole instance of substituting AI for her legal judgment, and noted her proactive engagement and financial investment in CLE courses on this subject. Id. at *17. Accordingly, the court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000. Id. |
| Nichols v. Walmart, Inc. (U.S. District Court—Southern District of Georgia) |
| In Nichols v. Walmart, Inc., No. 24-CV-00236, 2025 WL 1178592, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 23, 2025), the district court reviewed the magistrate's recommendation to dismiss the pro se plaintiff's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to impose sanctions for her use of fake case citations. In her objection to the magistrate's recommendation, the plaintiff conceded that the cited caselaw was fake, but her filing was not made in bad faith. Id. at *2. However, the district court determined that the plaintiff's inability to explain her use of non-existent legal authority and her attempts to shift blame for her wrongdoing strongly favored Rule 11 sanctions. Id. In light of the plaintiff's assertions of indigency and the dismissal of the case on jurisdictional grounds, the district court determined that dismissal was a suitable Rule 11 sanction. Id. |
| Ferlito v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. (U.S. District Court—Eastern District of New York) |
| In Ferlito v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., No. 20-cv-5615, 2025 WL 1181699, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2025), the plaintiff alleged that an axe purchased from the defendant was defectively designed. The defendant moved to exclude the plaintiff's expert, in part, because the expert "entered a query into ChatGPT about the best way to secure a hammer head to a handle, which produced a response consistent with his expert opinion." Id. In examining the proposed expert's qualifications under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the court found that the expert's testimony was sufficiently reliable to present to the jury. Id. at *3. The court considered the usage of ChatGPT and referenced the Kohls decision, which highlighted an expert's affidavit that included AI-generated citations to non-existent academic articles. Id. at *4. While the AI-generated material in Kohls shattered the expert's credibility, the court observed in the instant case that there was little risk that the expert's "use of ChatGPT impaired his judgment regarding proper methods for securing the maul's head to its handle." Id. |
| Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (United States District Court—Eastern District of Pennsylvania) |
|
In Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., No. 25-cv-576, 2025 WL 1085695, at *1, 8 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2025), the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint alleging unfair trade practices, negligence, breach of warranty, and products liability. In reviewing the matter, the court found that the plaintiff's filings contained two problematic citations—specifically, the court could not locate the case citations. Id. at *6. Subsequently, the court ordered the plaintiff's attorney to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed for the inclusion of these cases in the briefs. Id. After some unconvincing explanations by the attorney, the court crafted a unique penalty without including monetary sanctions. Id. at *7. First, the court referred the matter for consideration by the Pennsylvania State Bar and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bar. Id. Next, the court struck the attorney's appearance in this case with prejudice due to violations of Rule 11(b)(2) and the court's standing order. Id. Finally, the court ordered the attorney to inform the plaintiff of the sanctions, and if she chooses to refile her case, she must find new counsel. Id. |
| Gordon v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Inc. (U.S. District Court—Middle District of Georgia) |
| In Gordon v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Inc., No. 5:24-CV-388, 2025 WL 1057211, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 8, 2025), the court addressed the defendant's motion to dismiss the pro se plaintiff's complaint alleging violations of state and federal law, as well as numerous motions by the plaintiff. The court denied all of the plaintiff's motions with the exception of his request for additional time to respond to the defendant's motion to dismiss. Id. In the order, the court noted that the plaintiff may be using AI to research and draft his motions, as he cited several cases that appear to be fabricated. Id. at *3. The court reminded the plaintiff to verify any cited case to be in fact real, and not AI-generated. Id. The court also warned the plaintiff that he may incur a substantial penalty for failing to comply with Rule 11 requirements. Id. |
| An v. Archblock, Inc. (Delaware Court of Chancery) |
| In An v. Archblock, Inc., No. 2024-0102, 2025 WL 1024661, at *1, 3 (Del. Ch. Apr. 4, 2025), the court dismissed the pro se petitioner's motion to compel discovery. The court discerned that the petitioner's motion was replete with miscites, suspecting use of GAI to prepare the motion. Id. at *1-2. The court was leaning towards dismissing the motion without prejudice; however, the petitioner insisted that, while some language in the citations was paraphrased, the principles from the cited cases are directly relevant and applicable. Id. at *2. As a result, the court denied the motion with prejudice. Id. The court cautioned the petitioner that failure to ensure future filings are truthful, accurate, and compliant with court requirements, including the necessary certification regarding the use of GAI, may lead to sanctions such as monetary penalties, stricken filings, or the dismissal of this suit. Id. |
| Ford v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals) |
| In an appeal of a trial court's denial of the pro se appellant's motion to set aside a settlement agreement, the court concluded that the appellant demonstrated no right to relief. Ford v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 24-50053, 2025 WL 1008537, at *1 (5th Cir. Apr. 4, 2025). In reaching a conclusion, the court noted that the appellant cited no legitimate authority to support any of the issues raised on appeal, constituting a waiver of those issues. Id. The court also noted that the appellant's brief cited five non-existent cases, which amounted to an abuse of the adversary system. Id. at *1 n.1 (citing Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024) and Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)). |
| Dehghani v. Castro (U.S. District Court—New Mexico) |
| In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner's counsel purportedly hired a freelance attorney to write a response to a show cause order. Dehghani v. Castro, 25-cv-0052, 2025 WL 988009, at *1-2 (D.N.M. Apr. 2, 2025). The petitioner's counsel indicated that his revisions to the freelance attorney's draft were minimal, and he did not review the case law or verify the cases cited in support of the propositions before signing and filing the response brief. Id. at *2. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged there were at least six non-existent cases, which were likely the result of AI hallucinations. Id. at *4. For guidance i imposing sanctions, the court looked to Wadsworth, Gauthier, Bunce, Hayes, and HoosierVac. Id. at *5. The court recognized that the instant case was similar to Wadsworth, where the attorney took remedial action, acted with transparency, and demonstrated contrition. Id. The court ordered the petitioner's counsel to pay a fine of $1,500, to complete a one-hour CLE-credited program related to legal ethics in the use of AI, to self-report to the New Mexico and Texas state bars disciplinary boards, to send a copy of this order to the freelance attorney (and supervisory staff), and to report the freelance attorney to the appropriate state bar disciplinary board. Id. |
| McKeown v. Paycom Payroll LLC (U.S. District Court—Western District of Oklahoma) |
| In a discrimination and retaliation action, the defendant moved to dismiss for failure to present a claim and for dismissal with prejudice as a sanction for the pro se plaintiff's "repeated use of falsified legal authority in her filings." McKeown v. Paycom Payroll LLC, No. CIV-24-301, 2025 WL 978221, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 31, 2025). Ultimately, the court was not convinced that the plaintiff's explanation for using non-existent legal authority was credible, as she made no effort to provide any existing cases that she might have been using. Id. at *9. Importantly, the court stated that the plaintiff's pro se status did not justify using non-existent legal authority, particularly since she had already been warned that such behavior would not be tolerated. Id. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion. Id. Nevertheless, the court was unwilling to dismiss the plaintiff's claims with prejudice as a sanction; however, the court warned the plaintiff "that any future references to falsified legal authority will result in sanctions, such as filing restrictions, monetary penalties, or dismissal of her case." Id. |
| Sanders v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims) |
| In Sanders v. United States, No. 24-cv-1301, 2025 WL 957666, at *1, 3 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 31, 2025), the court dismissed the pro se plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff's filings contained citations to several non-existent cases. Id. at *4. In ruling, the court opined that the plaintiff's excessive reliance on AI compromised her ability to effectively represent herself, leading her to overlook the strongest arguments for her claim due to being misled by fabricated cases. Id. at *5. Although sanctions were not imposed in this case, the court warned the plaintiff (and future litigants) that including citations to non-existent cases in any filings may lead to sanctions, such as striking the filings, imposing filing restrictions, monetary penalties, or even dismissing the action. Id. |
| Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (U.S. District Court—Western District of Virginia) |
| In Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 22-cv- 00024, 2025 WL 900621, at *2 (W.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2025), the pro se plaintiff cited fictitious cases and misrepresented the rulings of various cases in a reply brief submitted to the court. In his response to the court's show-cause order, he acknowledged including fictitious cases and the mischaracterizations of case holdings. Id. However, he claimed that this was not intended to mislead the court or gain an unfair advantage. Id. Rather, he relied in good faith on publicly available, free GAI platforms for legal research. Moreover, at the time he filed the pleading, he was unaware that GAI platforms could produce fictitious or inaccurate case citations. Id. The court ruled that sanctions were unnecessary, as the plaintiff's actions, though negligent, did not demonstrate bad faith, either subjectively or objectively. Id. at *3. |
| Stevens v. BJC Health Sys. (Missouri Court of Appeals) |
| In a pro se appeal of an administrative denial of unemployment benefits, the court rejected the appellant's arguments as inapposite to controlling authority and stated that the cases she cited did not exist. Stevens v. BJC Health Sys., No. ED 112759, 2025 WL 837691, at *2 (Mo. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2025). In concluding, the court "warn[ed] litigants that using artificial intelligence to draft a legal document may lead to sanctions if the user fails to perform a critical review of the end-product to ensure that fictitious legal authorities or citations do not appear in filings with this Court or any other court." Id. at *2 n.1. |
| Nguyen v. Wheeler (U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Arkansas) |
| In Nguyen v. Wheeler, No. 24-CV-00815, 2025 WL 679024, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 3, 2025), the court imposed a sanction of $1,000 on the plaintiff for citing nonexistent authority in support of her response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. In the response, the plaintiff cited four cases that did not exist. See Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Response in Opposition to Defendant Savage Enterprises’ Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint, Nguyen, No. 24-CV-00815, at *38-40, 42-46 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 16, 2025), ECF No. 47. The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for citing nonexistent authority. Order, Nguyen, No. 24-CV-00815, at *11 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 19, 2025), ECF No. 55. In response to the show cause order, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that “[a]t one point AI had been used to assist in research [and] [i]t appears that some bad case law from that time may have crept into research files and got passed into this brief.” Response to the Order to Show Cause, Nguyen, No. 24-CV-00815, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 26, 2025), ECF No. 56. In an exercise of discretion, the court concluded that the Rule 11 violation warranted “a reasonable sanction.” Nguyen, No. 24-CV-00815, at *2. The reasonable sanction amounted to $1,000, which was “on the low end of the range of sanctions imposed on others who have engaged in similar conduct.” Id. |
| Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations, Inc. (U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Pennsylvania) |
| In Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations, Inc., No. 23-1740, 2025 WL 662398, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2025), an attorney filed two motions containing non-existent cases that the court found to be AI hallucinations. The motions were filed on January 14, 2025. Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for All Defendants, Bunce, No. 23-1740, ECF No. 131; Motion for Leave to Appeal of Sanctions of Defense Counsel, Bunce, No. 23-1740, ECF No. 132. At a show cause hearing to explain the filing deficiencies, the attorney indicated that he used ChatGPT, which was “fairly new” to him, for the filings at issue. Bunce, No. 23-1740, at *3. The court noted that the attorney did not review the bogus cases because “he ‘never in [his] wildest dreams’ thought ChatGPT could manufacture artificial cases to very conveniently support the exact outcomes he desired.” Id. at *3. In issuing sanctions, the court sought to deter the attorney (and other attorneys) "from credulously assuming AI can stand in place of an attorney's obligations under Rule 11." Id. at *4. Ultimately, the court ordered the attorney to pay a $2,500 penalty and to complete “a one-hour CLE-credited seminar or educational program related to both AI and legal ethics.” Id. |
| Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc. (U.S. District Court—Wyoming) |
| Another reminder to avoid blindly trusting AI citations comes from Wyoming. Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., No. 2:23-cv-118, 2025 WL 608073 (D. Wyo. Feb. 24, 2025). At the beginning of the opinion, the court emphasized that attorneys still have a duty to verify their sources and conduct a reasonable inquiry into applicable laws, especially in a legal landscape increasingly influenced by AI. Id. at *1. Here, the issue involved whether the plaintiffs’ attorneys should be sanctioned for filing motions in limine that contained citations to eight non-existent cases. Id. at *1-2. In making a ruling, the court considered the roles of the plaintiffs’ three attorneys: the drafting attorney, the supervising attorney, and local counsel. Id. at *2. The drafting attorney was the driving force, as he drafted the motions and uploaded the material into his firm’s in-house database with the intention to obtain “more case law,” among other queries. Id. The queries generated fictitious cases, which were included in the motions by the drafting attorney without any verification. Id. at *3. The supervising attorney and local counsel played no role in the drafting or preparation of the motions, but they did affix their e-signatures (along with the drafting attorney) at the bottom of the motions. Id. at *2. In making the ruling, the court acknowledged the longstanding general rule that “[t]he attorney must ‘stop, look, and listen’ before signing a document subject to Rule 11.” Id. at *4 (quoting Lieb v. Topstone Indus., Inc., 788 F.2d 151, 157 (3d Cir. 1987)). In a fact-specific analysis, the court carved out individual sanctions for each of the attorneys: a $3,000 sanction and revocation of his pro hac vice admission for the drafting attorney, a $1,000 sanction for the supervising attorney, and a $1,000 sanction for local counsel. Id. at 6-7. |
| Mid Cent. Operating Eng’rs Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC (U.S. District Court—Southern District of Indiana) |
| In the Southern District of Indiana, a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to impose sanctions for an attorney’s failure to recognize non-existent AI-generated cases in his filings. Mid Cent. Operating Eng’rs Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326, 2025 WL 574234, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 21, 2025). At a show cause hearing to explain the citations to non-existent cases, the attorney explained that he had previously used AI to assist with legal matters, and he was unaware of AI’s potential for creating fictitious cases and citations. Id. at *1. The attorney claimed that the materials “appeared to be credible,” and he did not conduct any further inquiry into the validity of the citations. Id. The judge observed that the appearance of validity of the AI-generated material did not absolve the attorney from “his duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry” under Rule 11. Id. at *3. In reaching a conclusion, the judge recommended that the attorney be sanctioned in the amount of $15,000 ($5,000 for each of the three briefs filed with false citations) and referred the matter to the chief judge for consideration of further discipline pursuant to local rule. Id. at *5. In a subsequent ruling, the district judge referred the matter to the Indiana Attorney Disciplinary Commission for investigation and prosecution pursuant to local rules. In re Ramirez, No. 24-cv-00326, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 6, 2025). |
| Saxena v. Martinez-Hernandez (U.S. District Court—Nevada) |
| In a pro se plaintiff's civil rights action, the court considered the defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice, considering numerous procedural deficiencies and allegations of fabricated case citations. Saxena v. Martinez-Hernandez, No. 22-cv-02126, 2025 WL 522234, at *1-2 (D. Nev. Feb. 18, 2025). In determining whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate, the court also considered less drastic alternatives. Id. at *5. The court concluded that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate, focusing on the plaintiff's severely deficient filings. Id. The court recognized that even with leniency afforded to pro se litigants, the plaintiff "cannot be reasonably expected to present coherent claims, adhere to [the court's] orders, or present honest argument to this court." Id. In reaching a decision, the court declined to issue a show cause order to determine why the plaintiff should not face sanctions for failing to cite proper legal authority and for misrepresenting the non-existent authority. Id. |
| United States v. Hayes (U.S. District Court—Eastern District of California) |
| In a criminal case, defense counsel submitted a fictitious case and quotation in his motion to unseal, as well as knowingly making misleading statements in his corresponding reply and at a subsequent hearing. United States v. Hayes, No. 2:24-cr-0280, 2025 WL 235531, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2025). The court found that these inaccuracies were deliberate and made in bad faith. Id. Despite having several opportunities to address his mistakes, the defense counsel did not make the necessary corrections. Id. While the court accepted a belated apology, the defense counsel’s later acknowledgment of the fictitious case demonstrated that his conduct was intentional. Id. Notwithstanding the foregoing findings and other subsequent dubious filings by the defense counsel, the court concluded that a sanction of $1,500 was proportionate to the defense counsel's conduct while also serving as an effective deterrent and ensuring no possible impact or prejudice on the defense's client. Id. at *15. |
| Kohls v. Ellison (U.S. District Court—Minnesota) |
| In Kohls v. Ellison, No. 24-cv-3754, 2025 WL 66514, at *1, 3 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025), the plaintiffs sought to exclude the defendant’s expert declaration from a professor at Stanford University, who focused on AI and misinformation. The professor used GPT-4o in preparing a declaration, which included fake citations. Id. at *3. Specifically, the declaration cited two fictitious academic articles and misattributed the authorship of a third article. Id. The court observed that the attorneys needed to show greater diligence and pay more attention to a document submitted under penalty of perjury. Id. The court highlighted the irony of relying on AI in a case about AI's dangers, but did not fault the professor for using AI for research. Id. at *3-4. The court emphasized the importance of verifying AI-generated content in legal documents and ultimately excluded the professor's declaration from consideration in the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Id. at *5. |
| Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone (Colorado Court of Appeals) |
| In Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, No. 24CA0190, 2024 WL 5230126, at *1 (Colo. App. Dec. 26, 2024), the pro se plaintiff relied on GAI tools to draft a court filing, only to discover later, to his chagrin, that the filing contained hallucinations. The court noted that this case was the first opportunity for a Colorado appellate court to address the appropriate sanction when a pro se litigant filed a brief peppered with GAI-produced hallucinations. Id. The plaintiff's appellate brief contained citations to seven fake cases. Id. at *5. In response to the court about the fake cases, the plaintiff admitted to relying on AI to assist with the preparation of his brief, confirmed that the citations were hallucinations, and that he failed to review the brief. Id. Before reaching a conclusion on whether to sanction the plaintiff, the court provided an extensive review of the LLM underlying GAI technology. Id. at *5-6. The court also referenced the oft-repeated refrain from Mata, 678 F. Supp. 3d at 448: "Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions.” Id. at *6. Accordingly, the court declared that "individuals using the current generation of general-purpose GAI tools to assist with legal research and drafting must be aware of the tools’ propensity to generate outputs containing fictitious legal authorities and must ensure that such fictitious citations do not appear in any court filing." Id. While the court emphasized that pro se litigants must adhere to the same procedural rules as licensed attorneys and be prepared to accept the consequences of their mistakes, the court recognized that other courts acted with leniency in similar situations. Id. at *6-7. In an act of discretion, the court did not impose sanctions on the plaintiff, because the record does not show that the plaintiff previously filed court documents containing fake citations. Id. at *8. |
| Gutierrez v. Gutierrez (Florida District Court of Appeals) |
| In Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 399 So. 3d 1185, 1186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024), the court dismissed the pro se appellant's appeals as a sanction and a bar from further appellate pro se filings in a probate action. The consolidated appeals were the 13th and 14th appeals from the underlying probate actions. Id. at 1187. On appeal, the court noted that the appellant failed to respond to multiple show cause orders. Id. Moreover, the appellant's filings did not comply with procedural rules, and "[a]larmingly, the bulk of the cases cited by [the appellant] do not in fact exist in the body of Florida case law, and therefore constitute fake or 'phantom case law.'” Id. While the court did not impose a monetary sanction, the court dismissed the consolidated appeals and barred the appellant "from future filings related to the underlying probate actions without the review and signature of a member of the Florida Bar." Id. at 1188. |
| Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Texas) |
| In Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 23-CV-281, 2024 WL 4882651, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024), the plaintiff's brief contained citations to two non-existent cases as well as multiple quotations that could not be found in the cited authority. The plaintiff's attorney used an unspecified GAI tool to produce the brief but failed to verify the content. Id. The attorney claimed that he used Lexis AI to check the material; however, it did not flag any issues within the brief. Id. In deciding whether to impose sanctions under Rule 11, the court highlighted that the Local Rules explicitly caution attorneys that GAI tools may produce factual and legal inaccuracies. Id. at *2. Further, attorneys are reminded that they must verify the information submitted to the court. Id. Ultimately, the court imposed a sanction of $2,000 and required the attorney to attend a CLE course focused on the use of GAI in the legal profession. Id. at *3. |
| Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (U.S. District Court—Central District of California) |
| In Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., No. 24-cv-07189, 2024 WL 4308032, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2024), the plaintiff repeatedly flouted court rules and orders, including failing to disclose that GAI was used in drafting court filings. Significantly, the court identified errors in the filings, "including reliance on a fabricated case and the use of fabricated quotations from the complaint." Mortazavi, No. 24-cv-07189, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2024), ECF No. 48. Accordingly, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s counsel violated Rule 11, as "[i]t should go without saying that a lawyer is not allowed to rely on fabricated legal authority and nonexistent pleading allegations in any motion filed with a court." Id. at *3. The court acknowledged that a lawyer may use AI for assistance, but remains "fully responsible for the contents of the generated product submitted in the filing—and that responsibility is not diminished in the least when the machine goes rogue." Id. The court imposed $2,500 in sanctions and ordered the plaintiff's counsel to notify the California State Bar of the sanction. Id. at *3-4. Docket. |
| Dukuray v. Experian Info. Sols. (U.S. District Court—Southern District of New York) |
| In Dukuray v. Experian Info. Sols., No. 23 Civ. 9043, 2024 WL 3812259, at *1, 11 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2024), while ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court observed that the pro se plaintiff's filings included citations to several nonexistent judicial opinions with false reporter numbers. Even in light of several high-profile cases, the court recognized the possibility that the plaintiff was not aware of the risk that ChatGPT and other AI programs were capable of generating fake case citations and misstatements of law. Id. at *11. Ultimately, the court warned the plaintiff that any further filings with citations to non-existent cases may result in sanctions, including stricken submissions, filing restrictions, imposition of monetary penalties, or dismissal of the case. Id. at *12. |
| Iovino v. Michael Stapleton Assocs., Ltd. (U.S. District Court—Western District of Virginia) |
| In Iovino v. Michael Stapleton Assocs., Ltd., No. 21-cv-00064, 2024 WL 3520170, at *7 (W.D. Va. July 24, 2024), the court took exception to the plaintiff's brief that cited multiple cases and quotations that do not appear to exist. At the show cause hearing, the plaintiff's counsel accepted responsibility for failing to use safeguards to ensure the accuracy of the AI output. Transcript of Show Cause Hearing at 8, Iovino, No. 21-cv-00064, ECF No. 204. Further, the court appreciated that the plaintiff's counsel pledged to implement relevant safeguards to avoid this situation in the future. Id. at 9. The court distinguished the case from Mata, noting that there was no intentional conduct by the plaintiff's counsel. Id. at 10. In a subsequent order, the court concluded that no sanction was warranted. Iovino, No. 21-cv-00064, slip op. at 1, ECF No. 200. Docket. |
| Anonymous v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ. (U.S. District Court—Southern District of New York) |
| In Anonymous v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 24-cv-04232, 2024 WL 3460049, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024), the court observed that the pro se plaintiff cited to and relied upon non-existent legal authority. In recognizing its obligation to afford a special solicitude to pro se litigants, including leniency in applying procedural rules, the court declined to issue sanctions but warned the pro se plaintiff to avoid such missteps in the future. Id. |
| Kruse v. Karlen (Missouri Court of Appeals) |
| In a pro se state case, the court imposed heavy sanctions on the pro se appellant, including dismissal of the appeal and imposition of damages, where the appellant's filings were riddled with procedural deficiencies as well as a brief that was filled with inaccurate or entirely fictitious citations to authority (purportedly obtained from an online “consultant” using AI). Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 47–49, 51–52 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024). In reviewing the appeal, the court itemized each of the twenty-two inaccurate case citations provided by the appellant, as well as erroneous citations to Missouri statutes and rules. Id. at 49-51. While the court recognized the challenges faced by pro se litigants, the instant appeal did not involve only minor technical briefing deficiencies. Id. at 52. Rather, the significant violations of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04 mandated the dismissal of the appeal. Id. at 53. The court further determined that the appeal was frivolous, resulting in sanctions of $10,000 to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. Id. at 53-54. |
| Park v. Kim (Second Circuit Court of Appeals) |
|
In Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 612–13 (2d Cir. 2024), the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's case, citing the plaintiff's attorney's repeated non-compliance with discovery orders. Another significant issue on appeal was that a reply brief filed by the plaintiff’s attorney referenced a non-existent case generated by ChatGPT. Id. The Second Circuit emphasized that attorneys must ensure the accuracy of their submissions and found the attorney's performance lacking, including a late submission containing only two case references, one of which was fabricated. Id. at 613-15. The Second Circuit referred to Mata to highlight that a fictitious opinion does not constitute existing law. Id. at 615. The Second Circuit referred the plaintiff's attorney to the Grievance Panel for potential disciplinary action due to a false statement of law in the brief and a failure to validate the arguments as required by Rule 11. Id. at 615-16. |
| Will of Samuel (Surrogate's Court of New York) |
| In a contested probate proceeding, the petitioner sought to deny probate of a will. Will of Samuel, 206 N.Y.S.3d 888, 889-90 (Sur. Ct. 2024). In reviewing the petitioner's filings, the court addressed an allegation that the petitioner's counsel submitted reply papers containing "fictional and/or erroneous citations" created by GAI. Id.at 891. The court expressed reservations about using AI to draft legal documents; however, the primary issue was counsel's failure to thoroughly examine and scrutinize the AI-generated sources. Id. In exercising discretion, the court concluded that sanctions for the petitioner's counsel will be addressed at a later date. Id. at 892. |
| Morgan v. Comty. Against Violence (U.S. District Court—New Mexico) |
| A pro se plaintiff's employment discrimination action was the second opportunity for a federal court to address phony AI-generated case citations. Morgan v. Comty. Against Violence, No. 23-cv-353, 2023 WL 6976510, at *1, 8 (D.N.M. Oct. 23, 2023). In granting the defendant's motion to dismiss in part, the court warned the plaintiff against abusing the judicial process. Id. at *7. The court noted that the plaintiff's response brief cited five fake or non-existent cases. Id. at *8 n.3. The court declined to impose sanctions in this case, but cautioned the plaintiff that "[a]ny future filings with citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions such as the pleading being stricken, filing restrictions imposed, or the case being dismissed." Id. |