{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-24T06:05:04.668Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"ai-citations","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-ankara-lawyer-faces-prosecutor-and-bar-investigations-after-ai-tool-added-wrong-court-of-cassation-citations-to-petition","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Yalnızca dilekçeyi içtihatlarla desteklemek amacıyla yapay zekadan yararlandık'; 'Yapay zeka, mevcut Yargıtay kararlarını ekledi, ancak bu kararlara ait künyeleri yanlış yazdı'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Yapay zekâ, mevcut Yargıtay kararlarını ekledi ancak bu kararlara ait künyeleri yanlış yazdı'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A petition signed by the lawyer in a civil case at a court in the Kızılcahamam district of Ankara cited Court of Cassation decisions whose case and decision numbers were wrong; the lawyer says the team used AI to support the petition with case law and the AI tool inserted existing decisions with wrong reference numbers.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer attributes the wrong numbers to the AI tool; the tool is not named and no output was published."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Ancak aynı gün mahkeme hem Ankara Barosu'; 'UYAP üzerinden yapılan incelemede belirtilen şekliyle bulunamadığını, numaraların gelişigüzel yazılmış izlenimi verdiği belirtilerek ilgili avukat hakkında Türk Ceza Kanunu kapsamında işlem yapılmasının'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Duruşmada karşı taraf avukatının durumu fark etmesi üzerine mahkeme, aynı gün Ankara Barosu'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Opposing counsel raised the citations at the hearing and the court wrote to the Ankara Bar and the prosecutor the same day; according to the lawyer, the court said the decisions could not be found as cited in UYAP and the numbers gave the impression of having been written at random, and asked for action under the Turkish Penal Code.","causal_attribution":"The court's wording is known only as the lawyer and the outlets relay it; the court document was not read."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Meslektaşlarım arasında da şaka konusu oldum'; 'ilk kez hem savcılık hem de baro aşamasında bir soruşturmayla karşı karşıya kaldım'; 'İfade tutanağında isnat edilen suçun ne olduğu belirtilmedi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Meslektaşlarım arasında şaka konusu oldum'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer reports facing investigations by both the prosecutor's office and the bar for the first time in the lawyer's career, and says that the prosecutor did not specify the alleged offence, that the error was unintentional, and that the lawyer became a joke among colleagues.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's account of the consequences."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Bu tür soruşturmalar savunma faaliyetini baskı altına alma sonucunu doğurur'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A coordinator of a lawyers' rights group said the investigations amount to pressure on the defence and that no intent or fault can be attributed to the lawyer.","causal_attribution":"Advocacy position, recorded as context."}],"effects":[{"label":"referred to the prosecutor and the bar after AI-added citations with wrong numbers; says the lawyer became a joke among colleagues","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://kisadalga.net/haber/ozel-haber/avukat-hakkinda-acilan-sorusturmanin-yapay-zekanin-ekledigi-hatali-ictihat-kunyelerinden-kaynaklandigi-one-suruldu-138719","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"tr","translation_note":"Read in Turkish on 2026-10-24 (full article, by Gülseven Özkan, with the lawyer's interview). Translation by the research agent, an AI.","independence_group":"kisa-dalga-interview-with-lawyer"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://t24.com.tr/gundem/yapay-zek-yargitay-kunyelerini-uydurdu-avukat-sorusturmalik-oldu-keske-yararlanmasaydim-saka-konusu-oldum,1329644","kind":"news_relay","access":"read","language":"tr","translation_note":"Read in Turkish on 2026-10-24 through a Wayback capture (live page returned 403). T24 states it relays Kısa Dalga's report, so it shares the same independence group. Translation by the research agent, an AI.","independence_group":"kisa-dalga-interview-with-lawyer"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and what it produced.","The hearing and referral dates.","The outcome of the prosecutor's and bar investigations.","Whether the cited decisions exist with different numbers, as the lawyer says; the court's own wording was not read."],"geography":{"basis":"The petition was filed in a civil case at a court in the Kızılcahamam district of Ankara, and the referrals went to the Ankara Bar and the prosecutor; where the lawyer lives is not stated.","court_countries":["TR"],"event_countries":["TR"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse consequence of AI-generated legal citations: the lawyer's account to Kısa Dalga describes the AI tool inserting Court of Cassation decisions with wrong numbers and the court's same-day referral to the prosecutor and the bar. It adds a criminal-law referral of the lawyer, beyond a court or bar sanction.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawyer told Kısa Dalga that the team used AI to add case law to the petition and that the AI tool inserted existing Court of Cassation decisions with wrong case and decision numbers; according to the lawyer the court found the decisions could not be located as cited and referred the lawyer to the prosecutor and the bar the same day. The tool is not named and its output was not published.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Ankara lawyer faces prosecutor and bar investigations after an AI tool added Court of Cassation decisions with wrong numbers to a petition, Kısa Dalga reports","summary":"Kısa Dalga reported on 17 June 2026 that a lawyer in Ankara faced investigations by the prosecutor's office and the Ankara Bar after a petition the lawyer signed in a civil case at a court in the Kızılcahamam district cited Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) decisions with wrong case and decision numbers. According to the lawyer, three lawyers prepared the petition and used AI only to support it with case law; the AI tool inserted existing Court of Cassation decisions but wrote their reference numbers wrongly. Opposing counsel raised the citations at the hearing, and the same day the court wrote to the bar and the prosecutor; the lawyer says the court stated the decisions could not be found as cited in the national judicial system (UYAP) and that the numbers gave the impression of having been written at random. The lawyer says the prosecutor did not specify the alleged offence, that the error was unintentional, and that the lawyer became a joke among colleagues. A lawyers' rights group called the investigations pressure on the defence. The AI tool is not named, the hearing date is not given and no outcome of either investigation has been reported.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-06-17","aiSystem":"An unnamed AI tool that the lawyer's team used to add case law to a petition and that, according to the lawyer, inserted Court of Cassation decisions with wrong reference numbers","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI research tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the lawyer's account to Kısa Dalga, an AI tool inserted Court of Cassation decisions with wrong reference numbers into a petition the lawyer signed; the court referred the lawyer to the prosecutor and the Ankara Bar the same day, and the lawyer reports becoming a joke among colleagues.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the lawyer who signed the petition and is under investigation. The two other lawyers on the team are not reported as investigated.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"TR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://kisadalga.net/haber/ozel-haber/avukat-hakkinda-acilan-sorusturmanin-yapay-zekanin-ekledigi-hatali-ictihat-kunyelerinden-kaynaklandigi-one-suruldu-138719","primarySourceLabel":"Kısa Dalga, Dilekçesinde yapay zeka kullanan avukata çifte soruşturma, 17 June 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-24T03:20:39.284114+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-24T03:20:39.284114+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["lawyer-investigation","ai-citations","court-of-cassation","bar-investigation","prosecutor-referral"]},{"id":"2025-lacey-insurance-discovery-relief-denied-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 8 para 20: 'I have struck, and decline to'; 'consider, any of the supplemental briefs'; 'I decline to award any of the discovery relief'; p. 7 para 17: 'The initial, undisclosed use of AI products to'; 'generate the first draft of the brief was flat-out wrong.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought because her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research.","causal_attribution":"The order itself connects the struck briefs and denial of relief to counsel's undisclosed AI use, failure to cite-check and re-submission of the defective brief (paras 17-20)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 2 para 5: 'approximately nine of the 27 legal'; 'citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect in some way. At least two of the'; 'authorities cited do not exist at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order records that about nine of the 27 citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect and that at least two cited authorities do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The special master's own after-the-fact review, as recorded in the order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 10 para 24: 'clearly not at fault for the AI debacle'; 'She will not, however, be financially'; para 25: 'I decline to order any sanction'; conclusion: 'aggregate amount of $31,100.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order makes the two firms jointly and severally pay $31,100 in aggregate, states the client was not at fault and will not be financially responsible for the awards, and declines any sanction against individual lawyers.","causal_attribution":"Allocation of financial responsibility is directly recorded in the order."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, declaration p. 46 para 3: 'generative AI capabilities found in CoCounsel and Westlaw Precision and'; p. 47 para 4: 'It is unclear to me whether'; 'research tools I utilized returned some erroneous information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied in part on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he cannot tell whether particular errors arose from his transcription or from a tool.","causal_attribution":"The declarant's own statement; the order does not determine which tool produced each error."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, joint response section II p. 76: 'None of the K&L Gates attorneys who worked on the subject brief used any'; order p. 3 para 7: 'the attorneys at K&L Gates didn’t'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The second firm states that none of its lawyers who worked on the brief used or had access to AI tools or knew that AI had been used until the special master's inquiries.","causal_attribution":"The firm's own submission; the order records that the special master had no reason to doubt the sworn statements."}],"effects":[{"label":"Loss of requested discovery relief after the claimant's briefs were struck","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; read on 2026-10-09 from the retained PDF text of the 77-page filing: order pp. 2-10, appendix inventory p. 11, originating lawyer's declaration pp. 46-47 and the firms' joint response section II p. 76. PDF page 1 yielded no text. Not every appended exhibit was read.","independence_group":"lacey-ecf119"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which tool, if any, produced each erroneous citation or quotation; the declarant says he cannot distinguish his transcription errors from tool output.","Whether the requested discovery relief would have been granted had the briefs been accurate.","The later course of the insurance action and where the AI-assisted drafting took place.","Paragraph 1 of the order (PDF page 1) was not inspected because the page yielded no extractable text."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was issued by a special master in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The record does not state where the AI-assisted drafting took place or where the claimant lives, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"A filed court order directly establishes that the claimant's briefs were struck and her discovery relief denied because of AI-generated false citations in her lawyers' filings, with the monetary award placed on the firms. The tool identities are attributed to the declarant and kept as reported.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The filed order records that a lawyer used AI tools to generate the research outline for the claimant's brief and that the resulting brief contained false citations and quotations (about nine of 27 wrong, at least two non-existent). The special master read those authorities, found they did not exist, and on that basis struck the briefs and denied the discovery relief, writing that the use of AI affirmatively misled him. The declarant names CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini but cannot say which tool produced each error, so the per-tool contribution is unestablished.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Insurance claimant loses discovery relief after her lawyers file AI-generated false citations; special master's order sanctions the two firms $31,100","summary":"In an order dated 5 May 2025 and filed on 6 May in Lacey v. State Farm (C.D. Cal.), a special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research: about nine of 27 citations were wrong and at least two cited authorities did not exist. One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he could not tell whether particular errors came from his transcription or from a tool; co-counsel at the second firm say they used no AI tools and did not know AI had been used. The order makes the two firms jointly pay $31,100, states the client was not at fault and will not bear the awards, and imposes no penalty on individual lawyers.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-05","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-06","aiSystem":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, named in one lawyer's sworn declaration as the generative AI tools used for the research outline; the order itself refers to 'various AI tools' and does not establish which tool produced each error","aiProduct":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Gemini (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated citations; the $31,100 award falls on the firms, not on her.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One claimant whose briefs were struck and whose discovery relief was denied (order paras 20 and 24). She did not use the AI tools herself, so participant users is 0. The lawyers and firms bear the monetary award but are not counted as harmed persons.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Co., C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-05205, ECF 119: special master's sanctions order dated 5 May 2025, filed 6 May 2025 (with appendix)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:29:01.113121+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:12:38.363121+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025","ai-citations","court-sanction","legal-research","consequential-response"]}]}