# Lawyer caught using AI-hallucinated cites when defending a disciplinary hearing for using AI-hallucinated cites? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 1, 2025, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471 "2025-11-01T02:10:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/1 "2025-11-01T02:10:56Z")
At a seminar I attended recently on “AI for lawyers” a speaker claimed there was a case in the US where a lawyer got caught filing a brief that contained AI-hallucinated citations - but then in his submission in the resulting disciplinary proceedings he got caught doing the same thing. Speaking to people afterward some claimed it was an urban legend, but I have a recollection of seeing a media article about it. I’ve been googling to try to get to the bottom of it and can’t find any support for the claim - but it’s damn hard to come up with search terms that will isolate this circumstance from the million and one stories about lawyers who have got caught using AI-hallucinated cites and been disciplined for it. Anyone know? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/2 "2025-11-01T02:34:10Z")
Have you…done an internet search for “lawyer AI false citations”? Because just as a quick search I find plenty of stories from legitimate journalism sites and lawyer blogs like these: > **[Court Sanctions Attorneys for AI-Cited Fake Cases—Rule 11 Violati](https://natlawreview.com/article/court-sanctions-attorneys-submitting-brief-ai-generated-false-citations)** > > Highlights > **[Court Sanctions Attorneys for AI-Cited Fake Cases—Rule 11 Violati](https://natlawreview.com/article/court-sanctions-attorneys-submitting-brief-ai-generated-false-citations#google_vignette)** > > Highlights > **[Lawyer Sanctioned $6,000 for AI-Generated Fake Legal Citations](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/employee-benefits/lawyer-sanctioned-6-000-for-ai-generated-fake-legal-citations)** > > A federal judge slapped a $6,000 sanction on an attorney who filed briefs that included citations to nonexistent cases that were generated using artificial intelligence. > **[Lawyers Caught Submitting AI Briefs Face Worse Than The Court's Monetary...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jayadkisson/2025/10/27/lawyers-caught-submitting-ai-briefs-face-worse-than-the-courts-monetary-sanctions/)** > > Discusses the ethical implications of attorney who submit AI-drafted legal briefs without vetting them for accuracy. > **[Lawyers Sanctioned Again for Relying on Bogus Legal AI Citations Lawyers...](https://www.lawfuel.com/lawyers-sanctioned-again-for-relying-on-bogus-legal-ai-citations/)** > > Will Lawyers Ever Learn About AI in Court? It’s like the movie Groundhog Day in legal tech land: yet another courtroom, another set of lawyers caught submitting briefs riddled with AI-generated, utterly fake case citations. At this rate, we’re... > **[AI Hallucinations Strike Again: Two More Cases Where Lawyers Face Judicial...](https://www.lawnext.com/2025/05/ai-hallucinations-strike-again-two-more-cases-where-lawyers-face-judicial-wrath-for-fake-citations.html)** > > In what has become a distressingly familiar pattern in courtrooms across America, two more cases have emerged of lawyers submitting briefs containing non-existent legal citations generated by AI tools... > **[Fake Case Citations Land Two Attorneys in Hot Water Over AI Misuse](https://www.legal.io/articles/5609086/Fake-Case-Citations-Land-Two-Attorneys-in-Hot-Water-Over-AI-Misuse)** > > Two attorneys face judicial scrutiny in Texas and Pennsylvania for citing nonexistent cases highlighting growing concerns over misuse of AI in legal filings. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/3 "2025-11-01T02:49:50Z")
I can’t see that any of the articles you cite are relevant to my query. You may need to read it again. Some of the articles you cite have the circumstance where AI-hallucinated cites were found in a brief, and those citations were then corrected but it was found that the brief _still_ contained further AI-hallucinated cites. That’s not what the speaker at the seminar claimed. They claimed that at a subsequent disciplinary hearing, the lawyer in question made a submission concerning whether they should be disciplined that in itself contained AI-hallucinated cites. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/4 "2025-11-01T03:18:45Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > They claimed that at a subsequent disciplinary hearing, the lawyer in question made a submission concerning whether they should be disciplined that in itself contained AI-hallucinated cites. Try this: > **[Lawyer Gets Caught Using AI in Court, Responds in the Worst Possible Way](https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/lawyer-caught-using-ai-responds)** > > Even after being caught, the embattled lawyer, at first, refused to admit that he used AI in his court documents. > Perhaps one of the reasons that we keep hearing about these completely avoidable catastrophes is that catching your opponent even making a single mistake using an AI tool is an easy way to gain an upper hand in court, so everyone’s on the lookout for them. > > That’s what happened here: it was the plaintiff’s legal team that first caught the mistakes, which included inaccurate or completely made up citations and quotations. The plaintiffs then filed a request for the judge to sanction [defense lawyer Michael] Fourte, which is when he committed the legal equivalent of shoving a stick between the spokes of your bike wheel: he used AI again. > > In his opposition to the sanctions motion, Fourte’s submitted document contained more than double the amount of made-up or erroneous citations as last time, an astonished-sounding [New York Supreme Court judge Joel] Cohen wrote. > **[653917 2024 Pamela B Ader v Jason Ader et al DECISION ORDER ON 174](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26185971-653917-2024-pamela-b-ader-v-jason-ader-et-al-decision-order-on-174/?ref=404media.co)** ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/5 "2025-11-01T03:27:43Z")
Great, thanks **Skywatcher** , that matches. So not an urban legend after all. ---
**Author:** ![Tatterdemalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/43a26b/32.png) [@Tatterdemalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tatterdemalion)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/6 "2025-11-01T03:48:27Z")
Does this one meet the criteria? “Atty Used Bad AI to Defend His Use of Bad AI in Same Case” [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/O_-1WxTBNHI/maxresdefault.jpg "Atty Used Bad AI to Defend His Use of Bad AI in Same Case") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_-1WxTBNHI) ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/7 "2025-11-01T03:59:29Z")
Yes, same case as **Skywatcher** located. Unless there’s another similar case out there, I think we have found our source. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/8 "2025-11-01T11:07:24Z")
Since the OP has been answered, I’ll note this recent news. Two federal judges were caught using AI to generate documents, which had errors. They blamed members of their staff: a law clerk and intern. [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/senator-warns-us-judges-ai-misuse-courts-try-adapt-2025-10-28/](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/senator-warns-us-judges-ai-misuse-courts-try-adapt-2025-10-28/) ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/9 "2025-11-01T12:17:53Z")
question for the lawyers: Suppose you are a completely lazy bum so you decide to let AI write an entire brief, and it quotes , say, 10 prior cases–how much trouble is it to check those 10 cites to make sure they aren’t hallucinations? Isn’t there an easy way to “google” the cite names–I know there’s a thing called to “Sheppardize” , is that the same thing? This is your career on the line --not a sophomore student paper that counts for15 % of the grade one semester and then gets trashed.. Why not check the AI cites before you turn in your work ? ---
**Author:** ![MikeS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MikeS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeS)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/10 "2025-11-01T12:28:30Z")
I was listening to a law podcast (“Serious Trouble”, highly recommended) where they talked about the recent judge case mentioned by @dtilque. One of the hosts speculated that some newly minted J.D.s these days may have gotten away with using AI throughout their degrees, and may not actually know _how_ to check things themselves — or, at least, it’s not a step they regularly took in their law school classes. Of course, I fully expect that every law school professor who’s paying attention will point to this anecdote and say “this is why you need to learn how to write these things yourselves and not use AI for them”, and rightly so. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/11 "2025-11-01T12:47:21Z")
Generally extremely easy. If it were some obscure old case it could be harder. What is harder than checking whether the case exists is checking whether it supports the proposition that you claim. ---
**Author:** ![MikeS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MikeS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeS)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/12 "2025-11-01T13:01:38Z")
There’s also the case of [_Mata v. Avianca_](https://www.goldbergsegalla.com/app/uploads/2023/10/Fake-Cases-Real-Consequences-Misuse-of-ChatGPT-Christoper-F.-Lyon-NY-Litigator.pdf), in which: - A man sued the airline Avianca for being injured by a beverage cart during a flight; - Avianca, a corporation with deep pockets, responded by digging out a bunch of complicated precedent that, they claimed, implied the case should be dismissed; - The plaintiff’s attorney, rather than ponying up the money to access the obscure legal databases discussing these precedents, asked ChatGPT about them and how to refute them; - ChatGPT then came up with some citations, including a fictitious case called _Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd._, which the plaintiff’s attorney cited in response; - Avianca’s lawyers tried to find _Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd._ in their databases, couldn’t find it, and effectively said “WTF?” - And the _pièce de resistance_: in response to Avianca’s questions, the plaintiff’s lawyer went back to ChatGPT, which very helpfully made up whole or partial opinions for _Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd._ and other non-existent cases, and the plaintiff’s lawyer then submitted them to the court as proof that these cases existed. When this all came out, the plaintiff’s lawyer eventually admitted that he had used ChatGPT for research, and that he thought it was just a very fancy search engine that was not in the habit of just making stuff up. This was all in 2022–2023, so I can kind of believe that someone not paying attention at that point in history would have been ignorant of the phenomenon of AI hallucinations. But that’s an explanation rather than an excuse IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/13 "2025-11-01T13:19:36Z")
> [@MikeS](#): > > I was listening to a law podcast (“Serious Trouble”, highly recommended) where they talked about the recent judge case mentioned by @dtilque. One of the hosts speculated that some newly minted J.D.s these days may have gotten away with using AI throughout their degrees, and may not actually know _how_ to check things themselves — or, at least, it’s not a step they regularly took in their law school classes. > > Of course, I fully expect that every law school professor who’s paying attention will point to this anecdote and say “this is why you need to learn how to I honestly thought you were going to say “check after you use AI.” ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/14 "2025-11-01T14:03:11Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > What is harder than checking whether the case exists is checking whether it supports the proposition that you claim. Yes, actually reading law. Exercising professional judgment about what you read. Applying your knowledge about the law to the facts of the case you’re dealing with. Being a lawyer, in other words. ---
**Author:** ![abcdefghij](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/43a26b/32.png) [@abcdefghij](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abcdefghij)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/15 "2025-11-01T14:06:20Z")
Alright, grandad! Time for your meds. ---
**Author:** ![3AxisCtrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/ecd19e/32.png) [@3AxisCtrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3AxisCtrl)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/16 "2025-11-01T14:24:11Z")
I’m surprised that this has become such an issue. AIUI, a lawyer’s signature is required on any legal brief, certifying that what’s submitted is factual and relevant. I’d certainly expect lazy lawyers to make sloppy use of AI. When they do, I’d expect judges to come down very hard, rejecting any and all attempts to use AI as an excuse. “This court does not tolerate dishonesty, nor any attempt to evade responsibility for such on the basis that the dishonest attorney also happens to be lazy.” I’d imagine a judge would impose serious sanctions for this: say, formal public admission of dishonesty and a $50k fine. ---
**Author:** ![We\_re\_wolves\_not\_werewolves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@We\_re\_wolves\_not\_werewolves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/We_re_wolves_not_werewolves)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/17 "2025-11-01T14:34:28Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > Since the OP has been answered, I’ll note this recent news. Two federal judges were caught using AI to generate documents, which had errors. They blamed members of their staff: a law clerk and intern. > > [https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/senator-warns-us-judges-ai-misuse-courts-try-adapt-2025-10-28/](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/senator-warns-us-judges-ai-misuse-courts-try-adapt-2025-10-28/) I mean, it’s probably true that the law clerk and intern were the _source_ of the errors, but a judge, just like a partner at a law firm, has a responsibility to check and corroborate all the work product that their junior attorneys generate. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/18 "2025-11-01T14:56:30Z")
That’s what I say every year to our new crop of articling students: If you sign it, it’s yours. No blaming someone else for your mistakes. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2025, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/19 "2025-11-01T14:57:10Z")
> [@abcdefghij](#): > > Alright, grandad! Time for your meds. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2025, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471/20 "2025-11-03T02:52:25Z")
I imagine this can be enforced to some extent by a professional order in every province? I’m an engineer and the Québec Code des professions applies to lawyers and engineers and nurses and…[Section II.32](https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/c-26?langCont=en#se:32) has a list! There are further lower level professional laws and regulations that apply. I completely understand the pressure to accept information that suits what you are trying to do, but these claims of legal cases that don’t exist are the equivalent of using “test results” for tests that never took place. I guess some people gamble on not getting caught. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-caught-using-ai-hallucinated-cites-when-defending-a-disciplinary-hearing-for-using-ai-hallucinated-cites/1024471.md?page=2)