AI-assisted legal research systems
Incidents implicated systems
Incidente 15711 Reporte
California Immigration Attorneys Reportedly Sanctioned Over Briefs Containing Probable Hallucinations in LNU v. Blanche
2025-10-20
California immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds were reportedly sanctioned in LNU v. Blanche after Ninth Circuit filings included purportedly fabricated and materially inaccurate legal authorities. The court said unauthorized generative AI use by unlicensed brief writers was probable and found that the attorneys failed to verify the filings and repeatedly lacked candor about the errors' source.
MásIncidente 15721 Reporte
Westlaw CoCounsel Reportedly Generated False Legal Quotations in United States v. Farris
2025-10-21
In United States v. Farris, court-appointed attorney Steven N. Howe admitted using Westlaw CoCounsel to draft appellate briefs that reportedly included AI-generated false quotations and misleading descriptions of precedent. The filing disrupted Farris's appeal, leading the court to appoint new counsel and restart briefing, while Howe lost his compensation and faced possible disciplinary action.
MásIncidente 16001 Reporte
Purportedly AI-Generated False Citations in Arizona Probate Appeal Reportedly Led to Sanctions Against Self-Represented Appellant
2025-09-11
Self-represented appellant Jeffrey Kotchka reportedly used purported AI tools to prepare an opening brief in a probate dispute involving his late mother's estate. The Arizona Court of Appeals found six of its eight citations deficient, including two nonexistent cases, and said Kotchka had made no effort to verify them. The court affirmed the appointment of his sister, Kim Dineen, as personal representative, ordering Kotchka to pay her attorney fees attributable to addressing the false citations.
MásIncidente 16031 Reporte
Crown Prosecution Service Reportedly Filed Purportedly AI-Generated False Citations in Two Extradition Appeals
2025-06-03
In joined appeals involving Andreea-Maria Tobosaru and Marian Tofan, the Crown Prosecution Service reportedly filed grounds of opposition containing two nonexistent authorities that likely originated from purported generative AI. The citations also appeared in a later document. The High Court said they did not affect the appeals, and the CPS apologized, citing inadequate verification by a reviewing lawyer.
Más