AI Hallucination Cases Database

Summary

Garner v. Kadince Utah C.A. (USA) 22 May 2025 Lawyer ChatGPT Fabricated Legal Authorities 1000 USD ▸ AI UseThe fabricated citations originated from a ChatGPT query submitted by an unlicensed law clerk at Petitioner's law firm. Neither Counsel reviewed the petition’s contents before filing. The firm had no AI use policy in place at the time, though they implemented one after the order to show cause was issued.Hallucination DetailsChief among the hallucinations was Royer v. Nelson, which Respondents demonstrated existed only in ChatGPT’s output and in no official database. Other cited cases were also inapposite or unverifiable. Petitioner’s counsel admitted fault and stated they were unaware AI had been used during drafting.Ruling/SanctionThe court issued three targeted sanctions:Attorney fees: Respondents’ counsel are to submit an itemized bill; Counsel must pay within 10 days of receiptClient refund: Petitioner’s counsel must refund all fees paid by Mr. Garner in relation to the defective petitionCharitable payment: Counsel must donate $1,000 to “and Justice for all” within 14 days and file proof of payment with the courtKey Judicial ReasoningThe panel (Per Curiam) emphasized that the conduct, while not malicious, still diverted judicial resources and imposed unnecessary burdens on the opposing party. Unlike Mata or Hayes, the attorneys in this case quickly admitted the issue and cooperated, which the court acknowledged. Nonetheless, the submission of fabricated law—especially under counsel's signature—breaches core duties of candor and verification, warranting formal sanctions. The court warned that Utah’s judiciary cannot be expected to verify every citation and must be able to trust lawyers to do so Evans et al v. Robertson et al E.D. Michigan 21 May 2025 Pro Se Litigant Implied Non-existent or misrepresented cases Warning — Bauche v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue US Tax Court (USA) 20 May 2025 Pro Se Litigant Implied Nonexistent cases Warning — ▸ " While in o...