Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed

Ukraine's anti-corruption court appeals chamber refused to consider an appeal the applicant had drafted with ChatGPT, calling it disrespect, report says

The Appeals Chamber of Ukraine's High Anti-Corruption Court left without consideration an appeal that the applicant had drafted with the ChatGPT chatbot, treating the approach as a sign of disrespect for the judicial system, UkraNews reported on 15 June 2025 from a ruling in the court-decision register. According to the report, the applicant wrote in the appeal that she had turned to AI after her lawyers declined to prepare it, and the court said the text contained sarcastic and offensive wording about the courts and that using ChatGPT-generated material without proper legal grounds contradicted the principles of judicial proceedings. The appeal concerned an investigating judge's refusal of her complaint about inaction by anti-corruption investigators and prosecutors. The ruling could be challenged in cassation within three months; no later outcome was found.

AI system
ChatGPT (reported)
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
15 June 2025
Event location
Ukraine
What the AI did
Communicated with the person · Informed a human decision about the person
Reported harm
Legal Harm
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Justice
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source
4 claims: 4 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: ChatGPT, which the applicant used to draft her appeal (as the court ruling is reported)

Reported harm

An applicant's appeal was left without consideration after the court treated its drafting with ChatGPT as disrespect and cited offensive wording in it, according to a report of the ruling.

Outcome

Unknown

The Appeals Chamber left the appeal without consideration; the report says the ruling could be appealed in cassation within three months. No cassation outcome was found in a news search on 23 October 2026, and the ruling itself was not inspected.

What remains unknown

  • The date of the ruling and the case number; the report is dated 15 June 2025.
  • Whether the offensive wording was ChatGPT's output or the applicant's own, and how much weight the court gave each reason.
  • Whether a cassation appeal was filed and with what result.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. As the ruling is reported, the applicant drafted her appeal with ChatGPT and said so in the appeal, and the court left it without consideration, calling the approach disrespect and saying that ChatGPT-generated material without proper legal grounds contradicted the principles of proceedings. The court also cited sarcastic and offensive wording in the text, and the report does not say whether that wording came from ChatGPT or from her.

4 claims: 4 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine refused to consider an appeal that the applicant had drafted with the ChatGPT chatbot, treating this approach as a sign of disrespect for the judicial system, and left the appeal without consideration.

Causal attribution. The ruling as reported by UkraNews from the court-decision register; the ruling itself was not inspected.

  • ukranews.com(opens in new tab) supports · Ukrainian
    Апеляційна палата Вищого антикорупційного суду України відмовила в розгляді апеляційної скарги, складеної заявницею за допомогою чатбота зі штучним інтелектом ChatGPT. Суд розцінив такий підхід як прояв неповаги до судової системи.; Апеляційну скаргу залишили без розгляду.
Reported In the appeal the applicant wrote that she had turned to AI after her lawyers declined to prepare the document.

Causal attribution. The applicant's own statement in her appeal, as reported.

  • ukranews.com(opens in new tab) supports · Ukrainian
    У тексті апеляції заявниця зазначила, що звернулася до ШІ після того, як її адвокати відмовились готувати документ
Reported The court said the text contained sarcastic and offensive wording about the judicial system and that using ChatGPT-generated material without proper legal grounds contradicted the principles of judicial proceedings; decisions must rest on the facts and the parties' legal positions, not on emotions or AI-generated information.

Causal attribution. The court's reasons as reported; the offensive wording and the AI use are given together, and the report does not separate their weight.

  • ukranews.com(opens in new tab) supports · Ukrainian
    Суд наголосив, що текст скарги містив саркастичні й образливі формулювання на адресу судової системи, а використання матеріалів, згенерованих ChatGPT, — без належного правового обґрунтування — суперечить принципам судочинства.; а не емоцій чи "інформації, згенерованої штучним інтелектом"
Reported The appeal was against an investigating judge's refusal of the applicant's complaint about inaction by a NABU representative and a SAPO prosecutor, and the ruling could be challenged in cassation within three months.

Causal attribution. Procedural context as reported.

  • ukranews.com(opens in new tab) supports · Ukrainian
    Скарга була подана на рішення слідчого судді ВАКС, який раніше відмовив у задоволенні скарги на бездіяльність представника НАБУ та прокурора САП.; Її можна оскаржити в касаційному порядку протягом трьох місяців.

Sources

1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Ukrainian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23 from an Internet Archive web/2026id_ capture (gzip, decompressed; the live page returned HTTP 403) and translated by that agent; no human translator or reviewer read it. Report of 15 Jun 2025 based on the ruling in the court-decision register (bodies/ru-ukranews-hacc-wb.html/.txt). Applies to s1.

Event countries: Ukraine. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Ukraine.

The recorded events are court events in Ukraine: the appeal was filed with and decided by the Appeals Chamber of Ukraine's High Anti-Corruption Court (UkraNews). The report does not say where the applicant lives, so the affected-person country is left empty.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-23: Published as a core case (communicated_with, with informed_decision_about): by the reported ruling, an applicant drafted her appeal with ChatGPT, and the court left it without consideration, citing the ChatGPT-generated material and offensive wording. One attributed report of the ruling; the ruling itself was not inspected.

People described

A private applicant in proceedings before Ukraine's High Anti-Corruption Court (not named in the report)

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the applicant who drafted the appeal with ChatGPT and whose appeal was not considered (UkraNews).

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#chatgpt#court-filing#appeal-rejected#ukraine#ukrainian-language

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Ukraine's anti-corruption court appeals chamber refused to consider an appeal the applicant had drafted with ChatGPT, calling it disrespect, report says. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-ukraine-anti-corruption-court-appeals-chamber-refuses-to-consider-appeal-applicant-drafted-with-chatgpt

BibTeX

@misc{2025_ukraine_anti_corruption_court_appeals_chamber_refuses_to_consider_appeal_applicant_drafted_with_chatgpt,
  title = {Ukraine's anti-corruption court appeals chamber refused to consider an appeal the applicant had drafted with ChatGPT, calling it disrespect, report says},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-ukraine-anti-corruption-court-appeals-chamber-refuses-to-consider-appeal-applicant-drafted-with-chatgpt}
}

Related cases

Low ChatGPT

UK Upper Tribunal: solicitors' ChatGPT-drafted grounds in an asylum appeal cited fake cases and invented quotes; two individuals self-report to the SRA

A published Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision issued on 21 September 2026 records that the grounds of appeal and skeleton argument in a Namibian national's protection appeal were produced by a paralegal at her then solicitors using ChatGPT. The tribunal recorded her counsel's acceptance that the grounds cited fake cases, quoted passages absent from those judgments and attributed to the First-tier judge sentences he never wrote, and itself called one purported quotation pure invention. The September 2025 error-of-law hearing was adjourned, and the appellant later withdrew three of her four original grounds. The tribunal allowed an amended version of her one surviving ground but found that it disclosed no error of law. It refused her permission to add two new grounds, holding that she should not be allowed to advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, so long after the time limit, and in the alternative found those grounds without merit. It directed the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; the Law Society Gazette reported the decision on 8 October 2026.

Low ChatGPT (reported)

Switzerland: Federal Supreme Court refuses to hear a 243-page appeal that the appellant said was drafted with intensive ChatGPT Plus support

A father in a dispute with the canton of Basel-Stadt over an electricity-price bonus for his newborn daughter filed a 243-page appeal with 17 requests to Switzerland's Federal Supreme Court, about 28 times the length of the cantonal judgment he challenged, which ran to just under eight and a half pages. He told the court that drafting it had been possible only through his "above-average intelligence", his analytical skills and the intensive support of ChatGPT Plus. In judgment 2C_549/2026 of 28 September 2026 the presiding judge, sitting alone, found the brief excessively prolix, held that using artificial intelligence did not release him from the pleading requirements and was no free pass for sprawling briefs, refused him a period to shorten it and declined to hear the appeal. No court costs were imposed. blue News reported the judgment on 20 October 2026.

Medium ChatGPT

Brasília labour court upholds the for-cause dismissal of a manager it found used ChatGPT to alter a delivery photo to contest an iFood customer's complaint

In a judgment of 30 July 2026, the 2nd Labour Court of Brasília (Regional Labour Court of the 10th Region) upheld the dismissal for cause, on 19 March 2026, of a manager hired in June 2024. The employer said he had used artificial intelligence to falsify photos of orders on the iFood delivery app. A witness told the court she saw him use ChatGPT to alter a photo of an incomplete order, in which two of four soft drinks had been sent, so that it appeared complete, and use it to contest the customer's complaint to iFood support. The judge found this an act of dishonesty and misconduct that broke the trust required of a manager, rejected his claim that the dismissal was fabricated in retaliation for a claim he had filed the day before, dismissed all his claims, denied severance items and ordered him to pay 10% counsel fees, suspended because he was granted free legal aid. The legal news site Migalhas reported the judgment on 3 August 2026. No appeal is reported.

Low ChatGPT

Prosecutor: judge used ChatGPT citations in Oklahoma custody order later vacated

In November 2025 Stephens County Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler issued an order in a child paternity and custody case that denied one parent's request for a psychological evaluation of the other parent and reprimanded the requesting parent's attorney 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics'. The attorney challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, telling the justices that it relied on two cases that do not exist; the challenge was dismissed in March after Wheeler vacated the order, and he is no longer on the case. According to a 17 August 2026 letter from the Stephens County district attorney, Wheeler told the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and that at least two citations in it produced by ChatGPT do not exist. The mother in the case told News 9 that learning the order's citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because it concerned the custody of a child. The attorney general's office declined criminal prosecution; judicial discipline remains possible.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents