{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-05T08:12:54.578Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"citation","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":5,"coverage":{"cases":5,"countries":3,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":5,"minors":0,"coreRelations":5,"contextualRelations":0,"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-tallinn-administrative-court-fines-complainants-ai-drafted-document-invented-scientists","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Kaebajad pöördusid halduskohtusse raieloa vaidlustamiseks ja saatsid kohtule dokumendi, kus viidati lageraie mõjusid puudutavatele teadustöödele'; 'Kohus avastas, et viidetes nimetatud Eesti teadlasi ei ole päriselt olemas ja kirjeldatud teadustöid polnud võimalik leida'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Kohus avastas, et viidetes nimetatud Eesti teadlasi ei ole päriselt olemas ja kirjeldatud teadustöid polnud võimalik leida'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Complainants contesting a felling permit sent the Tallinn Administrative Court a document citing scientific work on clear-cutting; the court found that the Estonian scientists named do not exist and that the studies could not be found.","causal_attribution":"The court's finding as reported by two outlets giving the same account (one chain); the ruling was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Tallinna Halduskohus määras trahvi kaebajatele, kes esitasid kohtule tehisaru abil koostatud dokumendi, mis sisaldas viiteid välja mõeldud teadlaste töödele'; 'Kaebajad vastasid, et tehisaru kasutamine pole keelatud ja nad ei tahtnud kohut eksitada'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Tallinna halduskohus määras esimest korda kohtusse pöördujatele trahvi, sest kaebuses leidus tehisaru loodud valeväiteid'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The document was drafted with the help of AI according to the reports, and the complainants, asked how it was produced, replied that using AI is not forbidden and that they had not meant to mislead the court.","causal_attribution":"The outlets' description and the complainants' reported reply; no tool is named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Seejärel määras halduskohus ühele kaebuse esitajale trahvi 150 eurot ja veel üheksale kaebajale 50 eurot'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Seejärel määras halduskohus ühele kaebuse esitajale trahvi 150 ja veel üheksale kaebajale 50 eurot'; 'kaebajad vastutavad kohtule esitatud väidete õigsuse eest'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine other complainants 50 euros each, saying that complainants are responsible for the accuracy of what they submit to the court.","causal_attribution":"Court step as reported; the ruling was not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Samuti andis kohus kaebajatele võimaluse esitada viidatud teadustööd kirjalike tõenditena ja hoiatas, et võib neid muidu kohtu eksitamise katse eest trahvida'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Before fining them, the court gave the complainants the chance to submit the cited works and warned that it could fine them for attempting to mislead the court.","causal_attribution":"Court step as reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Trahvimise peale esitatud määruskaebust arutanud Tallinna Ringkonnakohus nõustus halduskohtuga'; 'Riigikohus ei võtnud sel nädalal asja menetlusse, mistõttu on trahv nüüd jõustunud'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Tallinn Circuit Court agreed with the administrative court, and Delfi Ärileht reports that the Supreme Court declined to take the case that week, so the fines are in force.","causal_attribution":"Appeal steps as reported by Delfi Ärileht; the appeal rulings were not read."}],"effects":[{"label":"a court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine others 50 euros each over a document drafted with AI","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the document the complainants submitted cited scientists who do not exist and studies that could not be found","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://arileht.delfi.ee/artikkel/120593306/valjamoedud-teadlased-ja-uuringud-kohus-maaras-tehisaru-luulude-eest-eesti-esimese-ai-trahvi","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"et","translation_note":"Read in Estonian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-05 (Delfi Ärileht, published 26 June 2026); no human translator reviewed it. Its account of the case matches the ERR report sentence for sentence, which indicates a common court announcement; same chain as the other source. The court rulings were not read. Estonian 'tehisaru' is rendered as AI, 'kaebajad' as complainants and 'määruskaebus' as an appeal against the ruling.","independence_group":"tallinn-administrative-court-ai-fine-announcement-2026-06"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.err.ee/1610063551/kohus-maaras-tehisaru-loodud-valevaidete-tottu-kaebajatele-trahvid","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"et","translation_note":"Read in Estonian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-05 (ERR, published 26 June 2026); no human translator reviewed it. Its account of the case matches the Delfi Ärileht report sentence for sentence; same chain as the other source. It adds remarks by the chair of the court to ERR. The court rulings were not read.","independence_group":"tallinn-administrative-court-ai-fine-announcement-2026-06"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and which of the complainants used it.","The dates on which the document was submitted and the fines were imposed.","The outcome of the felling-permit dispute itself.","The case numbers and full reasoning of the three courts."],"geography":{"basis":"The events recorded are court events in Estonia. Both reports say the complainants sent the document to the Tallinn Administrative Court, which fined them, and Delfi Ärileht calls it Estonia's first AI fine and says the Tallinn Circuit Court and the Supreme Court dealt with the appeals. The reports do not state where the complainants live or where the tool was used.","court_countries":["EE"],"event_countries":["EE"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter: complainants who submitted a court document drafted with AI, citing scientists who do not exist, were fined by the court, and the fines are reported in force. The account is one court announcement as carried by Delfi Ärileht and ERR (one chain); all claims are reported because the rulings were not read. No complainant is named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Delfi Ärileht reports that the complainants submitted a document drafted with the help of AI, and ERR that the complaint contained false statements created by AI; both report that the complainants, asked how the document was produced, replied that using AI is not forbidden. The tool gave the complainants the content they submitted (communicated_with). No tool is named and the rulings were not read.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Estonia: Tallinn Administrative Court is reported to have fined ten complainants in a felling-permit case over a document drafted with AI that cites the work of scientists who do not exist; the fines of 150 and 50 euros are reported in force in June 2026","summary":"According to Delfi Ärileht and ERR (both 26 June 2026), complainants who went to the Tallinn Administrative Court to contest a felling permit sent the court a document that cited scientific work on the effects of clear-cutting. The court found that the Estonian scientists named in the references do not exist and that the studies described could not be found. It asked the complainants how the document had been produced, gave them the chance to submit the cited works, and warned that it could fine them for attempting to mislead the court. The complainants replied that using AI is not forbidden and that they had not meant to mislead the court. The court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine others 50 euros each, saying that complainants are responsible for the accuracy of what they submit. Delfi Ärileht reports that the Tallinn Circuit Court agreed with the administrative court and that the Supreme Court declined the case that week, so the fines are in force. No report names the AI tool.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-06-26","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tool with which, according to the reports of the court's ruling, the complainants' document was drafted; the document cited scientists who do not exist","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine others 50 euros each for submitting a document, drafted with AI, that cited scientists who do not exist; Delfi Ärileht reports that the Circuit Court agreed with the ruling and that the fines are in force (Delfi Ärileht; ERR for the fines).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":10,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine other complainants 50 euros each, ten people in all (Delfi Ärileht; ERR). The reports treat the complainants together as the submitters of the document drafted with AI and do not say which of them used the tool.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"EE","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://arileht.delfi.ee/artikkel/120593306/valjamoedud-teadlased-ja-uuringud-kohus-maaras-tehisaru-luulude-eest-eesti-esimese-ai-trahvi","primarySourceLabel":"Delfi Ärileht, 26 June 2026: Invented scientists and studies, court imposes Estonia's first AI fine","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:33:19.084955+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:33:19.084955+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated-citations","court-filing","court-fine","estonia","tallinn","administrative-court","own-use","estonian-language"]},{"id":"2025-aberdeen-mississippi-fee-suit-ai-hallucinated-citations-four-attorneys-sanctioned","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 2: 'the Court was unable to locate certain legal authorities cited within them. Specifically, the Court determined that the following filings contained hallucinatory citations'; p. 3: 'the attorneys admitted that the hallucinatory citations cited by them, and identified by the Court, resulted from unverified AI use.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In *Withers v. City of Aberdeen*, attorneys for both sides cited no fewer than six entirely fabricated precedents.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In late 2025, legal memoranda filed for both sides in a fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.) cited cases that do not exist; the court identified one such citation in the City's summary-judgment memorandum, three in its fee-challenge memorandum and two in the plaintiff's opposition, and the attorneys admitted the citations resulted from unverified AI use.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's sanctions order on the attorneys' own admissions."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 3: 'Williams admitted to using an AI tool to conduct legal research, and Wilson admitted to using generative AI to draft her respective filing. Neither of them verified the legal authority output by AI before filing their briefs.'; p. 9: 'She explained that she used “First Drafts,” an AI- powered program for drafting legal documents.'; p. 14: 'it had acquired software that was built for in-house legal research.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted the opposition using 'First Drafts', an AI-powered drafting program, and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool; neither verified the AI output before filing.","causal_attribution":"Admissions recorded and findings made in the sanctions order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 21: 'Kathleen M. Wilson’s pro hac vice admission in this case is REVOKED.'; 'Wilson is hereby ORDERED to pay a $2,500 fine to the registry of this Court'; 'Williams is hereby ORDERED to pay a $3,500 fine to the registry of this Court'; 'Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway is DISQUALIFIED from further participation in this case.'; p. 22: 'Mark McClinton is DISQUALIFIED from further participation in this case.'; 'send a copy of this Sanctions Order to the Mississippi Bar, the Louisiana Bar, and the Texas Bar.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"p. 20: 'Wilson and Williams are hereby BARRED from entering an appearance in any case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi for the period of two (2) years'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 June 2026 the court revoked Wilson's and Williams' pro hac vice admissions, barred both from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years, fined Wilson $2,500 and Williams $3,500, ordered Wilson to complete an AI ethics CLE, disqualified the two local counsel (Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway and Mark C. McClinton, who signed without checking the citations) with $1,000 fines each, and sent the order to the Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas bars.","causal_attribution":"The sanctions are the court's response to the AI-generated false citations and the failure to verify them."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Given the pending sanctions issue, this case is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court. The final pretrial conference scheduled on February 19, 2026 and trial scheduled on March 23, 2026 are hereby cancelled'; 'The following pending motions are hereby TERMINATED'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"p. 20: 'The Court is cognizant that upon disqualifying the resident attorneys the litigants are effectively left without representation in this case, and that this can cause hardship for them.'; p. 22: 'the Court will dismiss this case without further notice.'; p. 12: 'The Court was unable to resolve that dispositive motion given the tainted filings, and it effectively inhibited the case from proceeding further.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because of the sanctions issue the court stayed the case, cancelled the pretrial conference and the 23 March 2026 trial, and terminated the pending summary-judgment and fee motions; after disqualifying all four attorneys it gave both litigants 60 days to find new counsel, acknowledging this could cause them hardship, and warned the plaintiff that the case would be dismissed if no counsel appeared or he did not elect to proceed pro se by 7 August 2026.","causal_attribution":"The stay and loss of counsel follow directly from the sanctions proceeding over the AI-generated citations, per the court's orders."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'directing attorney Kathleen M. Wilson to show cause as to why this Court should not hold her in contempt for her failure to pay the fine'; 'Wilson shall have until September 16, 2026 to (1) pay the monetary fine'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 17 August 2026, after a show-cause order over Wilson's failure to pay the fine, the court extended her deadline to pay it and to complete the CLE to 16 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"Follow-on enforcement of the sanctions order."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys who used AI tools without verifying the output lost their pro hac vice admissions, were barred from the district for two years and fined","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"two local counsel were disqualified and fined for signing the AI-drafted filings without checking the citations","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the case was stayed, the trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel, with the plaintiff's case facing dismissal if no new counsel appeared","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.123.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Sanctions Order, ECF 123, filed 8 June 2026 (Senior Judge Sharion Aycock), 23 pages; full text read via pdftotext on 2026-09-29 (RECAP copy on CourtListener).","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.120.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order staying the case, ECF 120, filed 4 February 2026; one page, read in full on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.133.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order of 17 August 2026, ECF 133, extending one attorney's deadline to pay the fine and complete the CLE; one page, read in full on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/technology-science/artc-courtroom-hallucinations-lawyers-cite-precedents-dreamt-up-by-ai-as-clients-sabotage-their-own-cases","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"i24NEWS aggregate piece (Sep 2026) read on 2026-09-29 from the Internet Archive capture of 10 Sep 2026 (the live page is a JavaScript shell). It mentions the case in two sentences; its count of 'no fewer than six' fabricated precedents matches the order's list and is not an independent check.","independence_group":"i24news"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which underlying model the 'First Drafts' program and Williams' research tool used; the order names neither vendor's model.","Whether the Mississippi, Louisiana or Texas bars opened disciplinary proceedings, and whether Wilson paid by 16 September 2026.","Whether the litigants retained new counsel by 7 August 2026 and what became of the case.","The dates of the other tainted filings Wilson drafted in this case (ECF 123 p.11); they may predate 5 November 2025."],"geography":{"basis":"Federal case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi (Aberdeen Division); the order describes the attorneys as licensed in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published from the court's own sanctions order and related docket orders, which record the attorneys' admissions of unverified AI use and the resulting sanctions, stay and loss of counsel. Attorneys are named as they are in the public order; the plaintiff, a private litigant, is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records the two drafting attorneys' admissions that their filings were produced with AI tools (Wilson: 'First Drafts', a generative drafting program; Williams: an unnamed in-house AI legal research product) and finds that their unverified reliance on the output produced the fabricated citations.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.): four attorneys on both sides sanctioned after AI tools produced fabricated case citations; trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel","summary":"In a fee dispute between a Louisiana attorney and the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi, briefs filed for both sides in late 2025 cited six cases that do not exist. The attorneys admitted the citations came from unverified AI use: the plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted her filing with an AI drafting program called 'First Drafts', and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool. Senior Judge Sharion Aycock stayed the case and cancelled the March 2026 trial, then on 8 June 2026 revoked both attorneys' pro hac vice admissions, barred them from the district for two years and fined them $2,500 and $3,500, and disqualified and fined the two local counsel who had signed the filings. Both litigants were left without counsel and given 60 days to find new representation.","incidentDate":"2025-11-05","incidentEndDate":"2026-06-08","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-06-08","aiSystem":"'First Drafts', an AI-powered legal drafting program (plaintiff's counsel), and an unnamed in-house AI legal research software product (City's counsel); underlying models not stated","aiProduct":"First Drafts and unidentified legal research tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Per the court's orders, two attorneys who filed AI-generated fabricated citations lost their pro hac vice admissions, were barred from the district for two years and fined $2,500 and $3,500; two local counsel who signed the filings were disqualified and fined $1,000 each; the case was stayed with its trial cancelled, and the plaintiff was left without counsel under threat of dismissal.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Sanctions Order (ECF 123). Participant users: Wilson and Williams, the two attorneys who used the AI tools and were sanctioned (2). Others harmed through their use: the two local counsel disqualified and fined (Ridgeway, McClinton) and the plaintiff, an individual whose case was stayed, whose trial was cancelled and who was left without counsel (3). The City of Aberdeen is an organisation and is not counted; no other person's harm is stated.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MS","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.123.0_1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Withers v. City of Aberdeen, No. 1:24-cv-218-SA-RP (N.D. Miss.), Sanctions Order, ECF 123, 8 June 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:31.680119+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.045067+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","sanction","fabricated-citations","pro-hac-vice","own-use","mississippi"]},{"id":"2025-stephens-county-oklahoma-judge-chatgpt-fake-citations-paternity-order","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Wheeler denied a request from one of the parents' attorneys to have the other parent undergo a psychological test—and in his order denying the request, he pointed to multiple previous Oklahoma cases he said backed him up.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The 2025 order in a child paternity case'; 'He came under scrutiny after he reprimanded attorney [the attorney] last November in an order in the paternity case for asking for a psychological evaluation of the child’s father.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The issue came to light after a request for a mental evaluation was denied and a subsequent court order was filed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In November 2025, in a child paternity and custody case, Judge Wheeler issued an order denying a request by one parent's attorney for a psychological evaluation of the other parent, citing Oklahoma cases he said supported the decision.","causal_attribution":"Court history as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR and described by the mother; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge told the OSBI he only used ChatGPT for research and created the order himself, DA Jason Hicks wrote. The judge, however, also “indicated that at least two of the case citations included in his order and produced by ChatGPT do not exist.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Stephens County District Attorney Jason Hicks says Wheeler admitted to OSBI agents he cited \"at least two\" cases ChatGPT fed him that \"do not exist.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Hicks wrote that Wheeler acknowledged using case citations generated by ChatGPT and that at least two citations included in the order did not exist.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research while drafting the order, which cited two cases that do not exist, according to state records.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"According to the district attorney's 17 August 2026 letter, the judge told the OSBI that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and indicated that at least two case citations in the order, produced by ChatGPT, do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The judge's own statement to investigators as relayed in the district attorney's letter; all four reports rely on that letter, which was not read. The judge's attorney declined to comment."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge issued the reprimand “for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics” and cautioned that future similar filings may be subject to further sanctions.'; '[The attorney] challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February. He told justices that Wheeler based his order on two cases, Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co. and Hawkins v. Linhart, that do not exist.'; '[The attorney] dismissed his challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. Wheeler is no longer involved in the paternity case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'She said her attorney at the time challenged the ruling and began reviewing the legal authorities cited in the order.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The order reprimanded the attorney who had asked for a psychological evaluation of the child's father 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics' and warned of further sanctions; that attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, saying it relied on two nonexistent cases, and dismissed the challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. The mother told News 9 that her attorney at the time challenged the ruling.","causal_attribution":"The Oklahoman's account of the court filings and the mother's account to News 9; the Supreme Court filings were not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'[The mother] said learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child.'; '“Then it became very concerning to me that somebody would do something like that over a child custody case,” she said.'; '“He then turned around and decided to recuse himself from my case,” she said. “He called my attorney that I had at the time and apologized to him.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The mother told News 9 that learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child, and that the judge later recused himself from her case and apologised to her attorney.","causal_attribution":"The mother's first-person account in a broadcast interview."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints.'; 'The OSBI also looked into allegations “that Judge Wheeler offered to amend the order in exchange for a dismissal of a writ seeking relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court” and that he “eavesdropped on jury deliberations,” the DA disclosed in the letter.'; 'Prosecutors in the AG’s office “thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution,” the AG’s press secretary, Leslie Berger, said on Sept. 2.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The Criminal Justice Division of the Attorney General’s Office thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary possess ultimate jurisdiction over disciplinary actions for allegations of inappropriate behavior by judges regardless of whether the behavior constitutes a violation of a criminal statute.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Council on Judicial Complaints, including allegations that he offered to amend the order in exchange for dismissal of the writ and that he eavesdropped on jury deliberations; the attorney general's office said the evidence did not support criminal prosecution and that judicial discipline rests with the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary.","causal_attribution":"District attorney's letter and attorney general's statement as reported; no disciplinary finding has been made."}],"effects":[{"label":"an order in the mother's custody case that denied a request for a psychological evaluation cited nonexistent cases that the judge says ChatGPT produced","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the attorney who requested the evaluation was reprimanded in the order and sought relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court before the order was vacated","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the mother describes learning of the fabricated citations in her child custody case as alarming","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Oklahoman's report (USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect) as republished by Minnesota Lawyer; read in full from the Wayback capture of 10 September 2026 because the live page returned 403. Its ChatGPT-admission passages relay the district attorney's letter; its account of the reprimand, the Supreme Court challenge and the vacatur draws on court filings and the attorney.","independence_group":"oklahoman"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/oklahoma-judge-admitted-citing-fake-030000000.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"KFOR (Oklahoma City) report syndicated on AOL, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its account of the ChatGPT admission relays the same district attorney letter.","independence_group":"kfor"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.news9.com/oklahoma-city-news/stephens-county-mother-speaks-out-after-judge-accused-of-using-chatgpt-in-custody-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"News 9 (Griffin Media) interview with the mother, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its description of the ChatGPT admission also relays the district attorney's letter; the mother's own account is independent of it.","independence_group":"news9-mother"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/stephens-county-judge-faces-discipline-over-chatgpt-written-court-order/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Hoodline rewrite of the Reuters report, read in full on 2026-09-29. Reuters relays the same district attorney letter.","independence_group":"reuters"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["The text of the order and whether the nonexistent citations were decisive for denying the evaluation and for the reprimand.","Whether any disciplinary proceeding follows from the Council on Judicial Complaints referral.","The current state of the custody case after the vacatur and the judge's departure from it.","The exact day in November 2025 on which the order was issued."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was issued in Stephens County District Court, Oklahoma, and challenged at the Oklahoma Supreme Court (The Oklahoman; KFOR). News 9 reports from Stephens County and describes the mother's case as handled there; her residence is not stated beyond that.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete case in which a judge's use of ChatGPT for research put nonexistent case citations into an order that denied a parent's request and reprimanded the requesting attorney in a child custody case. The ChatGPT admission rests on the district attorney's letter as relayed by several outlets, which was not read; the order and the Supreme Court filings were not read. The mother and the attorney are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"According to the district attorney's 17 August 2026 letter, as reported by The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9, the judge told the OSBI that he used ChatGPT for research and that at least two citations in his order, produced by ChatGPT, do not exist. ChatGPT communicated only with the judge; the mother and the reprimanded attorney were affected through the order he issued. The letter itself was not read.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Stephens County, Oklahoma: according to the district attorney, Judge Lawrence Wheeler told state investigators that a November 2025 order in a paternity and custody case, which denied a parent's request for a psychological evaluation and reprimanded that parent's attorney, cited at least two nonexistent cases produced by ChatGPT; the order was vacated after the attorney challenged it","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-09","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used by the judge for legal research while preparing the order","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A court order in a child custody case, which the judge has acknowledged to investigators contained at least two nonexistent ChatGPT-produced citations, denied a request for a psychological evaluation of the child's father and formally reprimanded the requesting attorney; the attorney had to seek relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court before the order was vacated (per the district attorney's letter and The Oklahoman; the judge's attorney declined to comment).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people affected through the judge's use of ChatGPT: the mother, whose request for a psychological evaluation was denied by the order and who describes the discovery as alarming (News 9), and the attorney who requested the evaluation and was reprimanded in the order and challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court (The Oklahoman). The child and the other parent are not counted because no harm to them is reported. The judge, the AI user, is not counted: he faces a possible disciplinary process but no sanction has been reported and the complaint bundled other allegations.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OK","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","primarySourceLabel":"The Oklahoman (USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect), republished by Minnesota Lawyer, 9 September 2026: Oklahoma judge used AI on order that cited cases that don't exist","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:18.787549+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:16.712062+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","family-court","judge","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","institutional-use","oklahoma"]},{"id":"2026-kumar-sdt-strike-off-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, Allegation 2.1 findings and the schedule of false/miscited authorities.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"RollOnFriday's listing of the bogus citations.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Allegation 2.1 was found proved: Kumar's 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI, including the non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502', the miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' (in reality an IP case) and a misattributed Baxendale-Walker passage.","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment; trade press accounts are consistent."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, Allegation 2.2 findings and the 13 April acceptance.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Allegation 2.2 was found proved: his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted and contained further errors, which he accepted on 13 April 2026.","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, sanction and reasoning passages.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Outer Temple's case note confirming the outcome and the 'first SDT case on a lawyer's use of AI' framing.","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"On 25 August 2026 the SDT struck Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers with culpability 'very high', stating it would have struck him off on either allegation alone; the tribunal invoked Ayinde v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment; the 'first AI case' framing comes from the SRA's counsel and is attributed."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, conviction allegation and sentence passages.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"RollOnFriday's Isleworth Crown Court reference (recorded as a discrepancy; the judgment controls).","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The parallel ground was his 29 January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 — recorded by the judgment as at the Central Criminal Court (RollOnFriday says Isleworth Crown Court, a discrepancy) — sentenced on 26 April 2024 to a 12-month community order with 150 hours' unpaid work.","causal_attribution":"The conviction ground is established by the judgment; the convicting-court discrepancy across outlets is preserved."}],"effects":[{"label":"lawyer struck off after AI-generated false citations in his disciplinary defence","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf","kind":"tribunal_judgment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Judgment PDF read on 2026-09-15 (25 Aug 2026): allegations, findings, sanction, panel, and the Ayinde v Haringey invocation.","independence_group":"sdt"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/lawyer-struck-off-for-using-fake-ai-generated-cases-before-sdt","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026).","independence_group":"legal-futures"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/foreign-lawyer-produced-ai-generated-false-citations-at-sdt/5127825.article","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026, Hyde).","independence_group":"law-gazette"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/first-lawyer-struck-ai-addiction","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026). Colour and the specific bogus citations; its 'AI addiction' framing is editorial joking, not a finding.","independence_group":"rollonfriday"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.outertemple.com/joshua-hitchens-acts-for-the-sra-in-the-first-solicitors-disciplinary-tribunal-case-on-a-lawyers-use-of-ai/","kind":"counsel_case_note","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (8 Sep 2026). SRA counsel's chambers' note: case number, dates, judgment link, and the 'first SDT case on a lawyer's use of AI' framing; participant-side account, recorded as such.","independence_group":"outer-temple"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The specific generative AI tool is not named in the inspected accounts.","The convicting court appears as the Central Criminal Court in the judgment and Isleworth Crown Court in RollOnFriday; the judgment controls but the discrepancy is unresolved in the inspected material.","Whether Kumar seeks to appeal the strike-off is not reported.","His employment status after the strike-off is not reported; the Law Gazette's employment background predates it."],"geography":{"basis":"Events: his practice and the SRA proceedings in England. Affected person: Kumar, on the Register of Foreign Lawyers in England and Wales. Court: the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal; the parallel conviction was at the Central Criminal Court (per the judgment; RollOnFriday's Isleworth Crown Court is a recorded discrepancy).","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an own-use, work-context adverse consequence with tribunal-found AI misconduct and a dated, career-ending sanction. This applies the charter's individual-review rule to the AI-sanction class; a class-level ruling is not required. Kumar is named in a public tribunal judgment; the parallel conviction ground is recorded for completeness and is not used to inflate the AI link. RollOnFriday's 'AI addiction' framing is recorded as editorial joking.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Tribunal-found: the 12 March 2026 Answer's misleading quotations and citations were produced with generative AI, and the 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors (accepted 13 April). The specific tool is not named in the inspected accounts.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence","summary":"On 25 August 2026 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after finding proved that his 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI — including a non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502' and a miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' that is actually an intellectual-property case — and that his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors. The tribunal said it would have struck him off on that allegation alone; the parallel ground was his January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. This is the SDT's first case on a lawyer's use of AI, per the SRA's counsel.","incidentDate":"2026-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-25","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-04","aiSystem":"Generative AI (tool not named in inspected accounts)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Career-ending professional consequence for the lawyer who submitted AI-generated false citations in his own disciplinary defence: struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers on 25 August 2026, with culpability rated 'very high'.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Kumar himself, the AI user struck off (SDT judgment). No client or third-party harm is reported in the inspected sources and none is counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal judgment, SRA Ltd v Abhishek Kumar, Case No. 12884-2026 (25 Aug 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T06:18:05.203137+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:43.433309+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","strike-off","fabricated-citations","sdt","own-use","uk"]},{"id":"2026-aarons-chatgpt-fabricated-testimony-sanction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1a","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Order passages quoted by Ars: contempt, $5,000 to the Client Protection Fund in 30 days, referral.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Reuters wire: 'on Sept 9' — fine, contempt, referral, and the Sandoval caption.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"ABA Journal, 24 Aug: the $5,000 contempt anticipated from the 21 Aug show-cause hearing (pre-order; advance reporting, context only).","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"By written order of 9 September 2026, the New Mexico Supreme Court held Stephen Aarons in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, and referred him to the disciplinary board.","causal_attribution":"The contempt, fine and referral are quoted by Ars Technica and confirmed by the Reuters wire; the ABA Journal's hearing-day account anticipated but could not confirm the later written order. The order PDF itself was not retrieved in this review."},{"id":"c1b","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Ars: removal, bar pending referral, briefs struck, reassignment (Kim Chavez Cook appointed 2 Sep).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order also removed Aarons from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending the disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender (Kim Chavez Cook, appointed 2 September 2026).","causal_attribution":"Single-chain detail from Ars Technica's account of the order; the Reuters wire does not carry these elements."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Ars passages: Rev.com transcript plus record into ChatGPT (o3); the named fabricated witnesses and false attributions; the admission of non-verification.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"ABA Journal: 'admits stupidity over AI errors' at the show-cause hearing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Reuters headline account: 'ChatGPT invented fake police testimony in murder appeal, New Mexico high court says'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the case record to draft the brief, which contained fabricated witnesses and testimony — officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez', Manal Al-Jibury, Teresa Marquez, and false testimony attributed to Danny and Linda Stanton and Mariah Chavez — and misdescribed real precedents; he admitted at the hearing that he had not verified the output.","causal_attribution":"The fabrication and the admission are established by the attorney's own statements at the hearing and the court's findings as reported; no source reports a denial."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Ars: substitution of the public defender (Kim Chavez Cook, appointed 2 Sep); the court's remark about the client.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The client, Oscar Renee Sandoval, suffers a delayed appeal: the briefs were struck, Aarons was removed, and the public defender was substituted (appointed 2 September 2026); the court told Aarons 'your client is the one suffering'.","causal_attribution":"Single-chain detail from Ars Technica's account of the order; the delay's length is not stated."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Reuters wire via Straits Times: Sandoval caption, life sentence February 2025, Doña Ana County.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Ars: brief filed ~Aug 2025; State's motion to strike weeks later.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The underlying case is the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval, sentenced to life in February 2025 in Doña Ana County for killing his partner Shiereen Al-Jibury; the brief was filed around August 2025 and the State moved to strike weeks later.","causal_attribution":"Background context, attributed to the wire and Ars; the docket number was not confirmed in this review."}],"effects":[{"label":"attorney sanctioned for ChatGPT-fabricated testimony; client's appeal delayed","claim_id":"c1a","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/09/chatgpt-using-lawyer-punished-for-citing-fake-testimony-from-made-up-witnesses/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026, Brodkin). Quotes the 9 September order and the 21 August hearing; names the fabricated witnesses.","independence_group":"ars"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/chatgpt-invented-fake-police-testimony-in-murder-appeal-new-mexico-high-court-says","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026); Straits Times carrying the Reuters wire.","independence_group":"reuters"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/criminal-defense-attorney-admits-stupidity-over-ai-errors-but-still-receives-sharp-rebuke-from-his-states-high-court","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (24 Aug 2026). Post-hearing report citing the Santa Fe New Mexican; the fine and contempt were anticipated from the hearing, not yet the written order.","independence_group":"aba-journal"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The 9 September 2026 order PDF was not directly inspected (nmcourts.gov search empty; form-based case lookup); the claims about it rest on two chains quoting it.","The underlying docket number is unconfirmed.","The disciplinary-board process and its outcome are pending.","The full set of fabricated or misdescribed citations beyond the named examples is not reported.","The ChatGPT product tier and whether the firm had verification policies are not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"Events: Santa Fe, New Mexico practice and the Doña Ana County murder case. Affected persons: the attorney and his client, both in New Mexico. Court: New Mexico Supreme Court.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an own-use, work-context adverse consequence with a dated, quantified sanction and an admitted, judicially found AI link. This applies the charter's individual-review rule to the AI-sanction class; the retired ordinary_task_failure gate and a class-level ruling are not required. Aarons is a public officer of the court sanctioned by a public order and is named; his client's name appears in the public caption of the appeal. In a 2026-09-15 second pass the original compound first claim was split: the corroborated contempt/fine/referral stand as c1a, and the Ars-only order elements (removal, bar, struck briefs, reassignment) stand as reported c1b. person_relations recorded in the same pass.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The AI link is admitted and judicially found: Aarons fed a Rev.com transcript and the record into ChatGPT (OpenAI o3), and the court's order addresses the fabricated content in the filed brief; he admitted at the show-cause hearing that he had not verified the output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"New Mexico Supreme Court fines attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and removes him from a murder appeal over ChatGPT-fabricated testimony","summary":"Santa Fe defense attorney Stephen Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI's o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the record to draft briefing in the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval; the brief contained fabricated witnesses and testimony (including police officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez' and invented testimony attributed to real people) and misdescribed real precedents. After a 21 August 2026 show-cause hearing at which Aarons admitted he had not verified the output, the New Mexico Supreme Court's written order of 9 September 2026 held him in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, removed him from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender.","incidentDate":"2025-08-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-09","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-08-24","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI o3)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A dated, quantified professional sanction for the attorney who relied on ChatGPT's output: $5,000 fine, direct-contempt finding, removal from the case, a bar on appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, and struck briefs; his client's appeal is delayed as a result.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two documented harmed people. The user: Aarons, sanctioned (court order reported by Ars Technica and Reuters). Another person's use consequence: his client Sandoval, whose appeal is delayed by the struck briefs and the substitution of counsel (Ars quotes the court's 'your client is the one suffering'). No further harmed persons are reported; the victim's family is not counted (no harm to them is reported).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/09/chatgpt-using-lawyer-punished-for-citing-fake-testimony-from-made-up-witnesses/","primarySourceLabel":"Ars Technica (11 Sep 2026) — quotes the 9 Sep order and the 21 Aug show-cause hearing","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T06:16:05.506355+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:22.660417+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","sanction","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","own-use","new-mexico"]}]}