Trump administration lawyers file brief with mostly hallucinated, fake or non-existent citations

Last week, Above the Law published an interesting story about a case in which the lawyers for the Department of Health and Human Services were called out for filing a brief with fake cites.  The decision stated that "in addition to the errors discussed above, nine more citations that the Agency provides are entirely fictitious, eleven do not support the propositions for which they are cited, and ten have partially incorrect citations and do not support the propositions for which they are cited. Overall, twenty-two of the exceptions brief’s twenty-nine footnotes — and thirty-five of the forty-two legal or record citations — are fictitious, erroneous, or irrelevant."  Are the lawyers incompetent, sloppy or just reliant on "super intelligence"?

AI hallucinations now include fake witnesses and testimony

 Above the Law is reporting that New Mexico attorney Stephen Aarons was held in contempt and fined $5,000 after filing an appellate brief containing “false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses."  This is a different type of "hallucination" which -- at least to my knowledge - had been limited to made up citations or quotes.  You can read the story here.

Two recent posts on the incompetence and/or misconduct of "Trump lawyers"

 In Politico:  Trump’s inexperienced federal prosecutors are running into trouble in court

In Above the Law: Trump Lawyers Keep Missing Easy Filing Deadlines… How Is This Hard For Them?

Court Sanctions Lawyers From Both Sides In The Same Lawsuit For Filing Briefs With AI-Hallucinated Cases

As you know, cases involving lawyers getting in trouble for using AI generated cites of, or quotes from, non-existent cases keep piling up.  Check out this database for the latest count.

And, if you have been paying attention you might agree with me that the types of sanctions imposed by courts are becoming more severe.  It seems judges are losing patience.

So, today I am writing to report on a recent case in which a federal court in Mississippi sanctioned four attorneys, two on each side of a contract dispute.  What makes the case worth pointing out is not only that so many lawyers were sanctioned but that the court imposed a specific sanction I had not seen yet for cases like this.  The judge disqualified all the lawyers involved in the case, and two out-of-state attorneys who had been admitted pro-hac-vice to participate in the case were  barred from practicing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. The judge also said they would send a copy of the sanctions order to the state bars where each of the attorneys are practicing so that those jurisdictions could decide if parallel sanctions would be appropriate.

One of the lawyers reportedly stated that she did not know what hallucinated cases were, which, if true, can be seen as an admission of incompetence in itself at this point.

CNS has a link to the decision here, and Above the Law has a summary here and some analysis here.

New York adopts rule on use of AI

 Effective June 1, 2026, the New York State Unified Court System implemented a new statewide rule (Part 161) governing attorneys’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) in court filings. The rule permits attorneys to use AI tools when preparing submissions to the court and does not require disclosure of AI use. However, attorneys remain fully responsible for the accuracy of any AI-assisted work and must independently verify that filings do not contain fabricated cases, statutes, citations, or other false information.  You can read more details on the story here.

Federal judge imposes what may be the most expensive sanction for hallucinations yet

 Last month I reported on a case that was reported as imposing significant sanctions for citing hallucinated cases and stated that the running count of cases involving courts complaining about hallucinated cases created by AI was 768.  Today the count is 901.  Go here for the full list.

I have not read every case on the list nor have I followed it closely, but if the case I reported in March was really significant because the court imposed $15,000 in sanctions to the lawyers involved, you should know that a federal judge has raised the stakes considerably.

Today, the ABA Journal is reporting on a case in which the judge imposed $110,000 in fines and attorney fees against two lawyers who filed documents filled with fake cases and fabricated citations.

That may be the larges sanctions imposed for improper use of AI yet.  

The ABA Journal has the story here.

Sixth Circuit imposes significant sanctions for citing non-existent cases

Last January I reported on a case imposing significant sanctions for citing hallucinated cases and stated that the running count of cases involving courts complaining about hallucinated cases (created by AI) was 527.  Two months later, the number is now 768 (and by the time you read this, it may be higher.)  Go here for the full list.

I am writing about this again today because LawSites is reporting (here) that "[i]n what may be one of the most significant appellate sanctions rulings yet involving fabricated case citations, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has imposed substantial penalties on two Tennessee attorneys for filing briefs containing more than two dozen fake or misrepresented citations."  

The lawyers involved were ordered to pay $15,000 each in fines and to jointly pay for their opponents' full attorney fees on appeal plus and amount equal to double their costs.

Yet another case on improper use of AI in litigation

 The running count of cases involving courts complaining about hallucinated cases (created by AI) is now at 527.  (See here.)

Based on a recent one, Stacie Rosenzweig (in her post "We Should All Know Better By Now, But We Don't") reminds us of some basic rules of thumb:  

If you’re going to use AI to generate arguments or citations, verify every single one of them with a trusted legal research source.

Second, if despite your best efforts something sneaks through, fess up as soon as you learn about it, and move to correct or withdraw the pleading. Chances are, the opposing attorney won’t object.

Third, if you’re a supervisor, get a good AI policy in place before things go sideways, and train your junior attorneys and staff. And, if you’re a supervisor on a specific matter, . . . it may be time to trust less, and verify more.

And, it’s definitely time to trust less, verify more if your subordinate has already shown they’ve had problems with misuse of AI. . . . 

Finally—it’s not just this case. I’m seeing more of a duty of opposing counsel to detect, and to report, bad citations (AI or otherwise) rather than wait for the court to find them out. It’s always been a best practice to read each case cited by the opposing party (at least, each case substantively cited) so you can adequately respond to their arguments; finding out that a case doesn’t exist or that it’s not at all reflective of why it was cited shouldn’t be too much of a lift.

By the way, the sanctions imposed in the case were harsh:

The court declined to impose monetary sanctions. Instead, all three plaintiff attorneys were disqualified (and the whole case was stayed to allow the plaintiff to find new counsel), and they were ordered to provide copies of the order to the presiding judge in every pending case in which they were counsel of record (and the clerk was directed to send a copy of the order to the Mississippi regulatory authorities). The firm was directed to perform an audit, and, in the paragraph that made me shudder the hardest, the associate was ordered to seek withdrawal from every case in which she was appearing before that judge, and was forbidden from appearing in any other case before that judge for a period of two years.

And then think about what these sanctions meant for the clients and the firm.  Clients in unrelated cases lost their choice of counsel and the firm was forced to explain to other clients why that was the case.  I wonder if the clients will take their business elsewhere and whether the attorney will be seeking a new job... 

ABA Task Force Report on AI in the practice of law

 I recently attended a program on the "Top Ten" topics in legal ethics for 2025 and I bet you will not be surprised to learn that number one was a collection of issues related to the use of AI in the practice of law.  And, for that reason, it is important to report that the ABA Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence recently published its 2025 report.

As reported by Bob Ambrogi in Law Sites, 

Artificial intelligence is no longer an abstract or experimental technology for lawyers – it is rapidly becoming core infrastructure for law practice, courts, legal education and access-to-justice efforts, and the legal profession must now shift its focus from whether to use AI to how to govern, supervise and integrate it responsibly.

That is the central conclusion of a report released yesterday from the American Bar Association’s Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence, a 56-page assessment that takes stock of how AI is already reshaping the profession and discusses the risks, opportunities and unresolved challenges that lie ahead.

The report, Addressing the Legal Challenges of AI: Year 2 Report on the Impact of AI on the Practice of Law, arrives at what the Task Force calls a “pivotal moment” for the profession. AI adoption has accelerated dramatically over the past year, pushing lawyers, judges, regulators and educators into unfamiliar terrain that demands new ethical frameworks, governance models and competencies.

You can get a free copy of the report here. 

Look out for more commentary in the next few weeks.  I just saw the first one in Above the Law here.

How not to practice law: cite hallucinated cases in proceeding to determine if you are going to be readmitted to practice

 In another of installment of dumb things that lawyers do, today we have the story of a suspended lawyer  who was caught citing at least one hallucinated case likely generated by artificial intelligence in his bid to return to law practice.  You would think that's a sure way to derail your own case, by showing how unfit you are to practice!  The ABA Journal has the story here.

Court Kicks Lawyers Off Case After Finding Fake AI Cases In Filings

 As more and more cases of fake citations, and faulty use of AI in lawyering pile up, judges may be ready to start imposing stronger sanctions.  Read the story here.

Yet another case of sanctions for relying on AI to write briefs (resulting in cites to cases that do not exist)

Two attorneys who were representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in a defamation case in Denver have been fined $3,000 each as sanctions for submitting an inaccurate, AI-generated brief to the court in April.  Go here for the story.  

Above the Law has more on the story here, arguing the sanction was too low.

NPR has a comment here arguing that the case serves as a stark warning.

How not to practice law, Trump lawyers edition - UPDATED

 It has been a long time since I posted an entry into the long running series of "how not to practice law" featuring stories illustrating dumb things lawyers do that they should know better not to do...  So here we are today with a Trump edition, courtesy of the team of lawyers representing [sic] Trump in a case in Iowa against a pollster.  

In a nutshell, aside from the fact that the case is almost certainly frivolous, the story of the litigation reads like a script for a law related blooper reel.  You can read the details of the story in Above the Law here.

UPDATE, July 6: TechDirt has an update on the lastest details on this developing story here.

How not to practice law: AI edition

After a long absence from the blog today we have the second day in a row with a "how not to practice law' entry!  Today's story features a lawyer using AI hallucinated cases in support of a claim who, when called out on it, then cited more hallucinated cases.  That is bad enough, but the article also focuses on the fact that the trial judge issued an order based on the hallucinated cases... You can read the full story here,

Comment on Puerto Rico's newly adopted rule on technological competence

 As you probably know, paragraph 8 of the comment to Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) states, among other things, that "to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology."  This statement has since been adopted and integrated into the comments of the rules in about 40 states.

Puerto Rico, however, recently adopted new rules (based on a translation of the Model Rules) and the notion of technological competence appears in a specific rule rather than in a comment to the rule on competence.  

In a comment posted in Above the Law, the author argues that "the Puerto Rico Supreme Court came out with a much more realistic and impactful definition of a lawyer’s technological competence obligations than that promulgated by some 40 states" and that "the Puerto Rican rules are a stronger statement about competence and suggest why it is so important."

You can read the full comment here.

A lawyer’s duties in response to a data breach

 Over at Ethical Grounds, the unofficial blog of Vermont's bar counsel, Michael Kennedy reminds us of a lawyer’s duties in response to a data breach.

Comment on recent ABA Opinion on generative AI

 Back in July I posted that the ABA had recently issued an ethics opinion on generative Ai and the practice of law. I am writing about it again today to let you know that just recently The Law for Lawyers Today published a comment on the opinion here.

Breaking Down the ABA’s Guidance on Using Generative AI in Legal Practice

A recent article breaking Down the ABA’s guidance on using generative AI in legal practice is available here.

ABA issues Formal Opinion on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools -- UPDATED

July 29, 2024

The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued a new formal ethics opinion (ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 512) on ethical duties related to the use of generative artificial intelligence tools.  The summary states: 

To ensure clients are protected, lawyers using generative artificial intelligence tools must fully consider their applicable ethical obligations, including their duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to supervise their employees and agents, to advance only meritorious claims and contentions, to ensure candor toward the tribunal, and to charge reasonable fees.

You can access the full opinion here. 

UPDATE 8/5/24:  Here are a couple of comments on the new Ethics Opinion:

LawSites

Ethical Grounds

Emerging Trends in Legal Tech

 The Legal Talk Network has a new article with links to podcasts on emerging trends in legal tech here.