Courts keep sanctioning lawyers for fake AI case citations

In short: Courts are repeatedly finding that lawyers used AI tools that made up legal cases, and judges are responding with sanctions and fines.

What's going on

Several recent court incidents show a similar problem. Lawyers and other filers used AI chat tools to help write legal documents, but the tools produced case citations that did not exist. This is often called an AI “hallucination” (when the tool confidently invents information, like a student citing books that were never published).

One widely cited example happened in New York federal court in 2023, in an Avianca Airlines personal injury case. An attorney filed a brief that cited six fake cases that were generated by ChatGPT. The judge called them “bogus” decisions and set a sanctions hearing, and the lawyer later said he did not verify what the tool gave him.

More cases have followed. In a Utah case in June 2025, two attorneys filed a petition with fake ChatGPT-generated citations, and the court ordered refunds and payments, plus a $1,000 donation to legal aid. In another example reported in California, a lawyer was fined $10,000 after an appeal included many fabricated quotes.

A New York Times story published April 17, 2026 reports another dispute where lawyers were fined nearly $110,000 for citing AI-generated bogus case law. Separate searches show many similar incidents, but most reported sanctions are much smaller.

What to watch

Expect more courts to require lawyers to double-check citations in trusted legal databases like Westlaw before filing. Courts may also add new rules about when and how AI can be used in legal work.

Source: NYTimes