{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-31T08:40:19.319Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"asylum","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":2,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":2,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":2,"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-ninth-circuit-immigration-lawyers-suspended-over-ai-hallucinated-citations-board-reciprocal-suspension","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sethi filed an opening brief in this case with multiple fabricated citations and quotations'; 'Sethi cited two cases that do not exist and never existed'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The opening brief filed for the asylum petitioners and signed by Sethi cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to real opinions that do not contain them.","causal_attribution":"The court's own finding in its order."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'to which Rounds said that AI “was not used.”'; 'Rounds finally conceded that it was “possible” that AI might have been used by the individual who drafted the briefs'; 'Sethi Law Group employs law school graduates, who are not yet licensed attorneys, to write briefs'; 'that no licensed attorney read the cases cited by the unlicensed brief writer'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At oral argument Rounds said AI was not used and later conceded it was possible that the person who drafted the briefs had used AI; the drafter was an unlicensed law graduate whose citations no licensed attorney read.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the oral argument and of the attorneys' response."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'that the errors were the product of unauthorized AI use by their Brief Writers and a failure to cite check'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Responding to the order to show cause, the attorneys conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by their brief writers and a failure to check citations.","causal_attribution":"The attorneys' concession as recorded by the court; no AI tool, prompt or output was identified."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Neither of them suspected the use of generative AI because the Firm prohibited its use and required the Brief Writers to check all their citations'; 'it is beyond belief that he knew for a fact that it was not used'; 'is owed to this repeated failure of candor'; 'We do not sanction Sethi and Rounds for the simple fact that they or'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The attorneys said that at the time of the motion to correct they did not suspect AI because the firm prohibited its use; the court found that Rounds could not have known AI was not used, said it was not sanctioning AI use as such, and attributed the severity of discipline to their repeated failure of candour.","causal_attribution":"The attorneys' explanation and the court's findings, both from the order."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sethi and Rounds are each personally sanctioned in the amount of $2,500'; 'Sethi and Rounds are hereby suspended from practice before this Court for a period of six months starting ten days after this Order is filed'; 'provide a copy of this Order to their clients'; 'serve a copy of this Order on the State Bar of California'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Ninth Circuit fined each attorney $2,500, suspended both from practice before the court for six months, ordered them to give the order to their clients in every pending case, and directed service of the order on the State Bar of California.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's order."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Board hereby suspends the respondent from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and DHS for 6 months, effective June 13, 2026.'; 'On July 1, 2026, the Board granted the Joint Petition for Immediate Suspension.'; 'previously issued unpublished on September 15, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Board of Immigration Appeals suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and DHS for six months, effective 13 June 2026, after granting an immediate suspension on 1 July 2026, and designated the decision as precedent after first issuing it unpublished on 15 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the Board's decision."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the respondent contests the sufficiency of the evidence that he knew that certain errors in his filings were caused by the use of artificial intelligence'; 'the respondent’s claims of hardship to his clients are conclusory'; 'the application of our rules of attorney discipline to misconduct related to the use of AI is not an “outlier penalty,” as the respondent claims'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Before the Board, Sethi disputed that he knew AI had been used and argued that suspension would harm his clients and was an outlier penalty for AI-related misconduct; the Board rejected these arguments.","causal_attribution":"The respondent's arguments and the Board's ruling as stated in the decision."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The petition for review, which we granted'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court granted the asylum petitioners' petition for review.","causal_attribution":"The court's statement; it does not address any effect of the sanctions on the clients."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys were fined and suspended from practice before a federal appeals court, and one was suspended from immigration practice, over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and false statements about them","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf","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 the court's own site (HTTP 200, PDF text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"ninth-circuit-order-24-4790"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463666/dl?inline","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 the court's own site (HTTP 200, PDF text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"bia-matter-of-sethi"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the brief writers used; the order records only the attorneys' concession that AI use was probable.","Whether the State Bar of California opened proceedings after the referral.","Whether the suspensions affected the attorneys' clients; the Board found the hardship claims conclusory and no source describes a harmed client.","The date the opening brief was filed; the inspected sources do not state it."],"geography":{"basis":"The briefs were filed in and sanctioned by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the reciprocal suspension was imposed by the US Board of Immigration Appeals; the order describes the firm as based in Orange County, California. The attorneys' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a court decision about two attorneys informed by AI-generated fabricated authorities in their briefs: the Ninth Circuit's order fines and suspends two attorneys for filing briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and for repeatedly denying the AI source, and the Board of Immigration Appeals imposes a reciprocal suspension on one of them. Both records were read in full from the courts' own sites.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is two courts' response to AI use in filings: the Ninth Circuit order describes briefs with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations, records the attorneys' concession that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's brief writers, and imposes fines and a six-month suspension for filing them and for repeatedly denying the AI source; the Board of Immigration Appeals imposed a reciprocal suspension on that basis. The court read the fabricated authorities in the briefs, identified them and based its discipline of the two attorneys on filing them and on their statements about their source, so the AI output informed a decision about them (informed_decision_about); no tool is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows","summary":"On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2026-06-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-06-03","aiSystem":"Generative AI that, according to the attorneys' concession recorded by the Ninth Circuit, the firm's unlicensed brief writers probably used against firm policy; no tool is named in the order or the Board's decision","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Ninth Circuit's order, both attorneys were fined $2,500 and suspended from practice before the court for six months over briefs whose AI-hallucinated citations they had denied were AI errors; according to the Board of Immigration Appeals, one of them was then suspended from practice before the immigration courts, the Board and DHS for six months.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two attorneys, each named in the Ninth Circuit order as fined and suspended; the Board's reciprocal suspension concerns one of them. The asylum applicants are not counted: the court granted their petition for review and no source reports harm to them.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, order in No. 24-4790 (3 June 2026): attorney discipline over AI-hallucinated citations","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:02:36.457192+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:02:36.457192+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","legal-profession","sanction","suspension","hallucinated-citations","immigration"]},{"id":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-judicial-review-grounds-false-citations-supervising-solicitor-referred-to-sra","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'lodged judicial review proceedings in the Upper Tribunal'; 'What causes me to make that order are the “authorities” cited at [10], [17], [18], and [32] of the grounds.'; 'and no case with the citation [2010] UKUT 35 (IAC) even exists'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Judicial review grounds lodged in the Upper Tribunal on 26 June 2025 cited four authorities that the judge could not find or that carried wrong citations, including one citation that does not exist.","causal_attribution":"Judge's order of 20 August 2025 as set out in the judgment."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'may have relied on false citations which were generated by AI, as'; 'accepted he had done in this case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal recorded that the supervising solicitor accepted that the junior fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI in this case.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's record of the solicitor's acceptance (the judgment does not say when or in what words he accepted it); no tool, prompt or output is identified."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he relied on an outdated precedent on our system, practitioner blogs and personal notes'; 'we were concerned by the suggestion in the statements made by'; 'that the citation errors might have been caused by an “old precedent from previous cases”'; 'He stated that there was no mechanism by which staff at his firm could use AI.'; 'He said that he had, and that he had deleted it.'; 'was unable to offer a clear answer to that question'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The solicitor's written explanation of 26 September 2025 said the fee-earner relied on an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes, and the tribunal recorded that signed statements by both men suggested the errors might have been caused by an old precedent. At the hearing the solicitor said staff at the firm had no mechanism to use AI, and said he had found and deleted the precedent but could not say what it was.","causal_attribution":"The solicitor's and the fee-earner's own accounts as recorded in the judgment; contrary evidence on the AI origin. The solicitor could not identify the precedent ([53])."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'we consider that the inclusion of false citations in the grounds for judicial review and'; 'necessitates a referral to the SRA'; 'It matters not how such citation errors come about.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal referred the supervising solicitor to the Solicitors Regulation Authority because the grounds included false citations and he had failed to supervise their drafting, and said it does not matter how such citation errors come about.","causal_attribution":"Decision stated in the judgment promulgated on 17 November 2025."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'has now been amended so as to require a legal representative to confirm by a statement of truth that any authority cited within the form'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judgment states that the Upper Tribunal judicial review claim form has been amended to require a legal representative to confirm by a statement of truth that any cited authority exists, can be located with the citation given and supports the proposition for which it is cited.","causal_attribution":"Statement in the judgment's headnote and conclusions."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'He refused permission for reasons which we need not set out.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on 20 August 2025 for reasons the judgment does not set out.","causal_attribution":"Judgment; the refusal is not connected to the citations."}],"effects":[{"label":"supervising solicitor referred to the SRA over false citations in judicial review grounds drafted by a junior fee-earner","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full judgment text read in English by the research agent (an AI) on Find Case Law (HTTP 200); no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it.","independence_group":"ukut-2026-81-judgment"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool generated the false citations, and what was asked of it; the judgment records only the solicitor's acceptance.","Whether the junior fee-earner used an AI tool: he did not attend the hearing, and the statements he and the solicitor signed suggested an old precedent as the source of the errors.","What action, if any, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has taken on the referral.","Whether other files the fee-earner worked on contain false citations; the tribunal said it was likely but unestablished."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the grounds were lodged in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), the Hamid hearing was held at Field House and the referral is to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (judgment). Court: the Upper Tribunal. The solicitor's residence is not stated.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the Upper Tribunal's own judgment: false citations in judicial review grounds led the tribunal to refer the supervising solicitor to the SRA, and the tribunal records his acceptance that the junior fee-earner relied on AI-generated citations. The referral is documented; the AI origin is reported and the solicitor's earlier contrary accounts are recorded. The solicitor, the fee-earner and the applicant are private persons and are not named in the public text.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment records that the solicitor accepted that the junior fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI in this case ([52]), and the tribunal referred him to the SRA because the grounds included those false citations and he had failed to supervise their drafting ([56]). The false authorities reached the tribunal in the grounds; the judge identified them, ordered the show cause process and the panel acted on them in deciding to refer the solicitor (informed_decision_about). The AI origin rests on that recorded acceptance and on the tribunal's reference to his failure to put checks in place 'to ensure that the use of AI did not mislead the tribunal' ([46]). Against it, his written explanation had named an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes, the statements he and the fee-earner signed suggested an old precedent, which he said he had deleted and could not describe ([53]), at the hearing he said staff had no mechanism to use AI, and the tribunal said the source of the errors does not matter to the referral. No tool or output is identified.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal refers a supervising solicitor to the SRA over false citations in judicial review grounds; tribunal records he accepted they were AI-generated","summary":"Judicial review grounds lodged in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on 26 June 2025 by a solicitors' firm cited four authorities that the judge could not find or that carried wrong citations and propositions. The firm's compliance officer, a solicitor whose name was on the claim form, said a junior fee-earner had drafted the grounds under his supervision; his written explanation named an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes as the sources. After a Hamid hearing on 5 November 2025, the tribunal recorded that he accepted the fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI, and in a judgment promulgated on 17 November 2025 it referred him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the false citations and his failure to supervise. The tribunal said it does not matter how such errors come about. It also announced that the Upper Tribunal judicial review claim form now requires a statement of truth that cited authorities exist and support the propositions they are cited for.","incidentDate":"2025-06-26","incidentEndDate":"2025-11-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-11-17","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tool that, according to the tribunal's record of the solicitor's acceptance, generated the false citations a junior fee-earner relied on; no tool is named","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The supervising solicitor was put through a show cause order and a Hamid hearing and referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for false citations in grounds drafted by a junior fee-earner and for failing to supervise ([2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), promulgated 17 November 2025). The AI origin of the citations rests on the tribunal's record that he accepted it; his written explanation had named other sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the supervising solicitor referred to the SRA. He is not counted as an AI user, because the judgment records the junior fee-earner's reliance on AI-generated citations. The fee-earner, who had left the firm and did not attend, and the applicant, whose permission refusal the judgment does not connect to the citations, are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","primarySourceLabel":"Find Case Law, [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), UK v SSHD (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid), promulgated 17 November 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:31.6959+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:31.6959+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-hallucination","fabricated-citations","legal","immigration","tribunal","supervision","sra-referral","united-kingdom"]}]}