The Appellate Division, Second Department imposed $8,000 in sanctions on an attorney and $2,500 on his firm after he submitted a brief containing three fictitious AI-generated case citations, fabricated Court of Appeals quotations that directly contradicted actual law, and misrepresentations of real cases — then denied using AI at oral argument.
The Fourth DCA affirmed a final judgment in a breach of contract case but referred the appellant’s attorney to the Florida Bar after finding that the initial brief contained multiple quotations from the trial transcript that do not appear anywhere in the actual record.
The Fourth DCA imposed a filing bar on a pro se litigant in a divorce case who filed multiple AI-generated petitions containing frivolous arguments and AI-hallucinated legal propositions, holding that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys regarding the accuracy of their filings.
The Fourth DCA sanctioned an attorney and referred him to the Florida Bar for filing a certiorari petition containing fabricated case citations, finding that whether counsel used AI is irrelevant to the need for sanctions when fictitious authority is presented to the court.
Two California attorneys drew $2,500 fines, six-month Ninth Circuit suspensions, and mandatory AI-disclosure orders after filing briefs that cited cases that did not exist. The court held that an attorney’s signature attests to personal verification of every citation, no matter who or what dra
Two California attorneys drew $2,500 fines, six-month Ninth Circuit suspensions, and mandatory AI-disclosure orders after filing briefs that cited cases that did not exist. The court held that an attorney’s signature attests to personal verification of every citation, no matter who or what dra