{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-14T14:07:55.901Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"appeal-dismissed","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":1,"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-alabama-supreme-court-dismisses-family-trust-appeal-over-lawyer-ai-hallucinated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'filed briefs in this appeal that contain numerous invalid, inaccurate, and/or irrelevant citations to legal authorities'; 'They appear to be artificial-intelligence (\"AI\") \"hallucinations,\" i.e., fake authorities created by an AI system'; 'Most of the legal authorities in the briefs are misquoted or nonexistent'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellants' lawyer filed briefs whose citations the court found numerous, invalid, inaccurate or irrelevant, most of them misquoted or nonexistent, and which the court said appear to be AI hallucinations.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'first use of an AI research tool that summarized commentary not readily available through standard legal databases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, the lawyer attributed two misquotations to an AI research tool that summarised commentary.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's statement as quoted in the opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall admitted that many of the legal authorities in his briefs do not exist and that he improperly used AI to obtain those authorities'; 'Hall also informed the Court that he had self-reported his actions to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At the 4 February 2026 show-cause hearing the lawyer admitted that many authorities in his briefs did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them, and said he had self-reported to the Alabama State Bar.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Because those briefs are grossly deficient under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal'; 'the dismissal of this appeal is imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts before us'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed the appeal because the briefs were grossly deficient, and said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall is hereby ordered to pay attorney fees and costs'; 'in the amount of $17,200'; 'Hall is ordered to pay double costs'; 'We also refer Hall to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered the lawyer to pay $17,200 in attorney fees and costs and double costs of the appeal, and referred him to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'SELLERS, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I do not agree that dismissal of the appeal is appropriate as a sanction for the conduct of a lawyer'; 'I would affirm the judgment of the Mobile Circuit'; 'MENDHEIM, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I concur in the dismissal of this appeal'; 'His representation on appeal was of no benefit to them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Justice Sellers, concurring in part and dissenting in part, disagreed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for a lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits; Justice Mendheim, who concurred in the dismissal, wrote that the lawyer's representation on appeal was of no benefit to the clients.","causal_attribution":"Two separate opinions in the same record; neither is the court's holding."}],"effects":[{"label":"two appellants' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on AI-obtained authorities that were fake or misquoted","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 and double costs, barred from filing alone in the court and referred to the state bar","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from CourtListener's archived copy of this court PDF (storage.courtlistener.com, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext) because the court portal URL returned HTTP 403 to the agent; no translation was needed.","independence_group":"alabama-supreme-court-sc-2025-0106"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the lawyer used; the opinion names none.","Whether the dismissal changed the clients' substantive position; the trial court's summary judgment stands, the main opinion does not decide the merits, and one justice would have affirmed the judgment.","The outcome of the Alabama State Bar referral."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama on appeal from the Mobile Circuit Court. The appellants' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the Supreme Court of Alabama's opinion establishes that it dismissed two appellants' appeal as a sanction after their lawyer filed briefs built on fabricated authorities that he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI, and that it sanctioned the lawyer and referred him to the state bar. The opinion was read in full.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found the briefs' authorities appeared to be AI hallucinations, the lawyer admitted at the show-cause hearing that he had improperly used AI to obtain authorities that do not exist, and his reply-brief footnote quoted by the court says an AI research tool misattributed quotations. The AI output reached the court through the briefs, and the court dismissed the clients' appeal because those briefs rested on fabricated authorities (informed_decision_about for the clients); the lawyer received the fabricated output from the tool (communicated_with) and was sanctioned.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Alabama Supreme Court dismisses two siblings' family-trust appeal as a sanction after their lawyer admits using AI that produced fake citations","summary":"On 24 April 2026 the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an appeal by two siblings in a family dispute over living trusts because their lawyer, W. Perry Hall, had filed briefs in which most of the legal authorities were misquoted or did not exist. The court said they appeared to be AI hallucinations, and at a show-cause hearing in February 2026 Hall admitted that many authorities did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them. The court ordered Hall to pay the opposing party's fees and costs of $17,200 and double appeal costs, barred him from filing in the court without a co-signing attorney and referred him to the Alabama State Bar. It said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts. One justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, objected to dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the judgment against the clients on the merits.","incidentDate":"2026-04-24","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-04-24","aiSystem":"An AI research tool that, according to the lawyer's reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, summarised legal commentary and misattributed quotations; the lawyer admitted using AI to obtain authorities that do not exist. No product is named in the opinion","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI research tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the siblings' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on authorities that were misquoted or did not exist, which he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI; the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 in fees and costs plus double appeal costs and was referred to the state bar.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user: the appellate lawyer, sanctioned and referred to the bar. Two other people: the two appellants whose appeal was dismissed. The appellee, whose fees were reimbursed, is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","primarySourceLabel":"Supreme Court of Alabama, opinion in SC-2025-0106 (released 24 April 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","alabama","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","appeal-dismissed"]}]}