{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-05T07:25:37.516Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"citation","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":8,"coverage":{"cases":8,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":3,"minors":0,"coreRelations":5,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":3,"relationPending":1,"relationUnknown":2},"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":"2025-wadsworth-lawyers-sanctioned-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 181, pages 3–5, Procedural Facts and How the Fake Cases Were Generated.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order records a 22 January filing containing eight fictitious citations generated with MX2.law and not verified before filing.","causal_attribution":"The order records counsel’s admissions and the court’s findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 181, pages 5–6, Remedial Steps; pages 12–17, individual sanctions and conclusion.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court fined three lawyers a total of $5,000, removed the drafter from the case and treated withdrawal, candour, fee reimbursement and new safeguards as mitigation.","causal_attribution":"Sanctions address professional verification duties; the record does not assign sole responsibility to AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"Individual sanctions and removal from representation","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/gov.uscourts.wyd_.64014.181.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wadsworth-ecf181"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Underlying model, precise drafting day and eventual payment of penalties are unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"Wyoming federal court. Drafting location and lawyers’ residence not established.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"A filed order establishes the sanctions and AI-assisted drafting, with mitigation retained.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Court order identifies the tool and records the drafter’s prompts.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","acted_on_behalf"]},"name":"Three lawyers sanctioned after filing AI-generated fictitious citations","summary":"A Wyoming federal court fined three lawyers a total of $5,000 and removed the drafting lawyer from Wadsworth v. Walmart after a January 2025 filing cited eight nonexistent cases. The order identifies MX2.law as the drafting tool, records failure to verify its output and credits subsequent remedial steps.","incidentDate":"2025-01-22","incidentEndDate":"2025-02-24","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-02-24","aiSystem":"MX2.law","aiProduct":"MX2.law","aiCompany":"Morgan & Morgan","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court imposed $3,000, $1,000 and $1,000 penalties and revoked the drafting lawyer’s admission to this case.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Three individually sanctioned lawyers; one drafted with AI. Clients and institutional costs are not included in this minimum.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/gov.uscourts.wyd_.64014.181.0_1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Wadsworth v. Walmart, ECF 181, sanctions order filed 24 February 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:57:12.469277+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:20.611123+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-lacey-insurance-discovery-relief-denied-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119, pages 2–4, paragraphs 5–9; page 8 paragraph 20; page 10 conclusion.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The special master struck the claimant’s briefs and denied requested discovery relief after her lawyers relied on unverified AI-generated citations.","causal_attribution":"The order expressly connects the discovery sanction to counsel’s AI use and failures of verification."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119, page 10 paragraphs 24–25 and conclusion.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The $31,100 award falls on the firms; the order says the client was not at fault and would not be financially responsible.","causal_attribution":"Allocation of financial responsibility is directly recorded in the order."}],"effects":[{"label":"Loss of requested discovery relief","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"lacey-ecf119"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The later effect on the merits of the insurance case and the location of the AI use are unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"The order is in the Central District of California. The location of the AI-assisted drafting and the claimant’s residence are not established by the passages used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"The retained filed court order directly establishes the discovery sanction and allocation of the monetary award.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The retained filed court order directly establishes the discovery sanction and allocation of the monetary award.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["acted_on_behalf"]},"name":"Insurance claimant loses discovery relief after lawyers submit AI-generated false citations","summary":"In a May 2025 order in Lacey v. State Farm, a special master struck supplemental briefs and denied the claimant’s requested discovery relief after her lawyers submitted unverified AI-generated legal material. The order required the two law firms to pay $31,100. It explicitly said the client was not at fault and would not pay that award, and declined further penalties against individual lawyers.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-06","aiSystem":"Unspecified AI legal-research tools","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The special master struck the claimant’s briefs and denied requested discovery relief after her lawyers relied on unverified AI-generated citations.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One claimant directly affected by the denial of discovery relief. Firm costs are not counted as personal losses to every lawyer.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Company, ECF 119, order filed 6 May 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:29:01.113121+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:08.302696+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-al-haroun-solicitor-referral-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Paragraphs 73–81, especially 76–77 and 81.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judgment records the solicitor’s withdrawal from litigated matters following reliance on the client’s AI-generated citations and orders a regulatory referral.","causal_attribution":"The judgment connects the professional consequences to failure to verify the client’s research; it does not assign sole causation to AI."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Paragraph 81.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court declined to initiate contempt proceedings against the solicitor after accepting he had not realised the citations were false.","causal_attribution":"Procedural outcome directly recorded in the judgment."}],"effects":[{"label":"Professional withdrawal and regulatory referral","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Ayinde-v-London-Borough-of-Haringey-and-Al-Haroun-v-Qatar-National-Bank.pdf","kind":"court_judgment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ewhc1383-alharoun"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Specific AI tools, place of AI use, exact drafting day and month, and subsequent regulatory outcome are unknown.","The relation between the AI tools and the affected solicitor is unknown; the client supplied the research."],"geography":{"basis":"The inspected judgment is from the High Court of England and Wales. Research location and the affected solicitor’s residence are not established.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Official judgment inspected, with the client’s admitted AI use and the court’s procedural findings distinguished from unestablished downstream outcomes.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Official judgment inspected, with the client’s admitted AI use and the court’s procedural findings distinguished from unestablished downstream outcomes.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Solicitor referred to regulator after relying on a client’s AI-generated legal citations","summary":"A June 2025 High Court judgment records that a claimant accepted using AI tools in legal research containing fictitious authorities. His solicitor admitted relying on that research without checking it and said he withdrew from litigated matters. The court referred the solicitor to the regulator, while declining contempt proceedings because it accepted he had not realised the citations were false. The judgment does not establish a later disciplinary penalty.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-06-06","aiSystem":"Unspecified publicly available AI legal-research tools","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The judgment records the solicitor’s withdrawal from litigated matters following reliance on the client’s AI-generated citations and orders a regulatory referral.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One solicitor whose professional consequence is recorded. The client and all other litigants are not counted without separate harm evidence.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Ayinde-v-London-Borough-of-Haringey-and-Al-Haroun-v-Qatar-National-Bank.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:28:54.240186+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.282414+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"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-surat-customs-penalty-ai-hallucinated-citations-supreme-court","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The present appeal arose out of an Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposing a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on the appellant under Section 114, Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The challenge to the said penalty before the Gujarat High Court failed, as the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20 January 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The penalty was imposed for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to attract a lower tariff.'; 'the High Court dismissed his challenge on January 20, 2026, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds, and the Gujarat High Court dismissed his challenge on 20 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"Facts of the proceedings as recited in the Supreme Court judgment, reported by legal outlets; the judgment itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Upon verifying such judgments and articles, it does appear that the second respondent has relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations. A further investigation has also revealed that some of the case laws relied upon by the second respondent, which do exist, do not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom and it appears to be a hallucination of AI,' the Court observed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Upon verification, the court found that the second respondent had \"relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations.\" It further found that some case laws which did exist did not lay down the legal propositions attributed to them, and that this \"appears to be a hallucination of AI\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Supreme Court found that the penalty order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on existing cases that did not lay down the ratio attributed to them, which it said appears to be a hallucination of AI.","causal_attribution":"Finding of the Supreme Court after its own verification of the cited material, as quoted by the reports. The court attributes the defects to AI in qualified terms ('appears to be'); the tool is not named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The use of AI in this case, resulting in reliance placed by the second respondent on material which is dubious, proves fatal to the sustainability of the order imposing penalty on the appellant. Such circumstances compel us to interfere and remand the case,' the Court said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The proceedings were revived for fresh adjudication by an officer of the same rank other than the officer who had passed the original order.'; 'The Court left it to the wisdom of the appointing authority to initiate such action against the author of the Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 as may be warranted in the circumstances, in accordance with law.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, set aside a customs penalty of over ₹425 crore'; 'A bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Sheel Nagu did not examine the merits of the customs case at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Верховний суд Індії 2 вересня 2026 року розглянув справу щодо використання штучного інтелекту працівником митниці, який послався на неіснуючі судові справи та фальшиві цитати, накладаючи штраф у розмірі близько $45 млн' (the Supreme Court of India on 2 September 2026 considered a case of a customs officer's use of AI, who cited non-existent cases and fake quotations while imposing a fine of about $45 million)","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 2 September 2026 the Supreme Court held that the use of AI and the resulting reliance on dubious material was fatal to the penalty order, set aside the order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left action against the order's author to the appointing authority.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the Supreme Court as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"a ₹425 crore customs penalty order resting on non-existent and misattributed case law that the Supreme Court found appeared to be AI hallucination stood against the trader for about eleven months and was upheld by the Gujarat High Court","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the trader had to take the case to the Supreme Court, which voided the order but revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full body (including JSON-LD article body) read by curl on 2026-09-29. Reports and quotes the Supreme Court judgment of 2 September 2026.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/09/03/supreme-court-sets-aside-%E2%82%B9425-crore-customs-penalty-over-ai-generated-fake-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"SCC Times case note, read by curl on 2026-09-29; summarises the same judgment (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1741).","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://upstox.com/news/personal-finance/tax/how-a-diamond-trader-got-relief-from-a-425-crore-penalty-after-customs-used-ai-generated-citations/article-199828/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Upstox (4 September 2026), read by curl on 2026-09-29; based on the same judgment.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://sud.ua/uk/news/abroad/371427-mytnyk-poviryv-shi-i-vypysav-shtraf-na-45-mln-verkhovnyi-sud-use-skasuvav","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"uk","translation_note":"Ukrainian-language report (6 September 2026) read through the r.jina.ai relay on 2026-09-29 (direct fetch 403); translated by the reviewer. Cited only for context; it converts the penalty to about US$45 million.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_services","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the customs officer used and how it was used in drafting the order.","Whether the trader paid any part of the penalty or incurred other financial consequences while the order stood, and the trader's litigation costs.","The outcome of the revived adjudication and whether any action was taken against the officer.","The trader's country and place of residence."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, challenged in the Gujarat High Court and decided by the Supreme Court of India. The trader's country of residence is not stated in the read reports, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete case of institutional AI use in an adverse administrative decision about a person: a penalty order that India's Supreme Court voided after finding apparently AI-hallucinated authorities in it. The account rests on legal reporting of the judgment; the judgment text was not read. The underlying misdeclaration allegation was not decided and the proceedings were revived. The trader is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Supreme Court, after individually verifying the cited material, found non-existent cases, fake citations and misattributed ratios in the penalty order and said this 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'; it held that 'the use of AI in this case' was fatal to the order. The tool, and how the officer used it, are not stated in the read reports. The penalty decision was the officer's; whether the AI drafted or merely supplied authorities is unknown, so the AI-to-person relation is recorded as unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Surat, India: a customs officer's ₹425 crore penalty order against a diamond trader relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that India's Supreme Court found 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'; the court set the order aside after the trader had lost in the Gujarat High Court","summary":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.","incidentDate":"2025-10-08","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-02","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-02","aiSystem":"Unnamed generative AI tool whose output the Supreme Court of India found in a customs penalty order (non-existent and misattributed case law); the tool is not identified in the read reports","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A diamond trader was subjected for about eleven months to a ₹425 crore customs penalty order, and lost a High Court challenge to it, before India's Supreme Court voided the order because it relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that the court found appeared to be AI hallucination (Supreme Court judgment as reported by Bar & Bench, SCC Online and Upstox). The underlying proceedings were revived.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One trader, the appellant, on whom the penalty was imposed. The trader did not use the AI; the customs officer did. No other person is reported harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","primarySourceLabel":"Bar & Bench, 2 September 2026: Supreme Court scraps ₹425 crore penalty over fake citations, AI hallucinations in customs order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:08:50.773251+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:55.666396+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["india","surat","customs","supreme-court","hallucinated-citations","institutional-use","administrative-decision","penalty"]},{"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"]},{"id":"2025-gates-chatgpt-poisoning-attempt","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"reported-harm","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 1–2, victim information and Reason for Arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"affidavit"}],"assertion":"One husband reported incapacitation in two alleged contamination incidents.","causal_attribution":"The officer records allegations of contamination-related harm. Clinical findings and the actual chatbot replies were not inspected; AI's contribution remains unresolved."},{"id":"reported-ai-use","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2, Reason for Arrest; page 1, account-record evidence listing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"affidavit"}],"assertion":"Investigators allege that the accused used ChatGPT for research connected to the alleged offences.","causal_attribution":"Research activity is alleged. The inspected document does not reproduce replies or establish how they influenced conduct."},{"id":"event-boundary","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2 narrative: July 12 and August 18.","relation":"supports","source_id":"affidavit"},{"locator":"Page 1: on-or-about July 8 offence date.","relation":"context","source_id":"warrant"}],"assertion":"The reported contamination incidents fall in July and August 2025; the exact first day differs between records.","causal_attribution":"This bounds alleged episodes, not recovery or every research session. The research period extending into September does not establish another harm event."},{"id":"geographic-setting","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 1–2, state/county and charging allegations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"warrant"},{"locator":"Page 1, incident and victim-location fields; street details omitted.","relation":"supports","source_id":"affidavit"}],"assertion":"The alleged incidents and affected person's recorded location are in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.","causal_attribution":"Recorded geography does not establish guilt or AI causation."},{"id":"criminal-proceeding","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 1–2, court caption and charges.","relation":"supports","source_id":"warrant"}],"assertion":"A North Carolina District Court warrant records criminal charges against the accused.","causal_attribution":"The document establishes a criminal proceeding. Charges are allegations, and current case disposition was not verified in this review."}],"effects":[{"label":"Reported incapacitation following alleged drink contamination","claim_id":"reported-harm","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"warrant","url":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096681-chatGPT-warrant.pdf","kind":"court_warrant","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English source read; no translation required. This source shares the police-investigation account and is not independent corroboration of harm.","independence_group":"gates-police-investigation"},{"id":"affidavit","url":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096679-Cheryl-Gates-Warrant-Affidavit.pdf","kind":"sworn_officer_affidavit","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English source read; no translation required. This source shares the police-investigation account and is not independent corroboration of harm.","independence_group":"gates-police-investigation"},{"id":"wbtv","url":"https://www.wbtv.com/2025/10/13/school-therapist-tried-drug-husband-mecklenburg-county-documents-reveal/","kind":"journalistic_reporting","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English source read; no translation required. This source shares the police-investigation account and is not independent corroboration of harm.","independence_group":"gates-police-investigation"},{"id":"cmpd","url":"https://www.charlottenc.gov/cmpd/News-Information/Newsroom/New-page-96","kind":"official_police_release","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English source read; no translation required. This source shares the police-investigation account and is not independent corroboration of harm.","independence_group":"gates-police-investigation"},{"id":"cbs","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-therapist-husband-poison-attempt/","kind":"journalistic_reporting","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English source read; no translation required. This source shares the police-investigation account and is not independent corroboration of harm.","independence_group":"gates-police-investigation"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["domestic_relationship","physical_safety"],"unknowns":["Whether the alleged incapacitation and contamination are independently substantiated.","The content of the actual chatbot prompts/replies and whether responses helped, warned, refused or triggered safeguards.","The nature and extent of AI's contribution to the alleged conduct.","Clinical findings, longer-term health outcome and recovery date.","The exact first incident day: the warrant and affidavit differ.","Locations of individual chatbot exchanges and any current determination of guilt or case disposition.","Whether any NOPE product would have detected or prevented these events."],"geography":{"basis":"The warrant locates alleged offences in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The affidavit separately identifies the affected person's location; the court caption establishes the issuing court. These preserve the accepted metadata review's country roles and evidentiary limits.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Reviewed as an attributed adverse-event account using the warrant, sworn affidavit and previously inspected reporting. One reported harmed person is counted once. Source dependence, disputed dates and uninspected chatbot/clinical evidence remain explicit. Identity and operational detail are minimized.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The officer affidavit alleges research using the accused's ChatGPT account. Actual prompts and replies were not inspected.","status":"reported"}},"metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"The warrant expressly alleges offences in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Its caption separately identifies the issuing court. The affidavit identifies incident setting and the affected person’s location; existing affected-person evidence is retained. These are allegations in legal records, not a finding of guilt.","evidence":[{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"Mecklenburg County, North Carolina","location":"victim_description","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"Warrant, PDF pages 1–2: named state/county and charging text expressly locating the alleged offences in that county.","location":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096681-chatGPT-warrant.pdf","supports":["event_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"Warrant, PDF page 1: State of North Carolina, General Court of Justice, District Court Division caption.","location":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096681-chatGPT-warrant.pdf","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"Affidavit, PDF page 1: incident-location and victim-information fields; street details omitted.","location":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096679-Cheryl-Gates-Warrant-Affidavit.pdf","supports":["event_countries","affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]}],"court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"unresolved":["The location of every individual chatbot exchange is not established. This metadata review does not determine causal responsibility.","No determination of guilt or current case disposition was made in this bounded geographic review."],"reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","source_reviews":[{"url":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096681-chatGPT-warrant.pdf","notes":"English court warrant mirrored by a news publisher; pages 1–2 read and visually inspected. Geographic charging allegations and issuing court recorded; this is not a conviction.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://i.ntd.com/assets/uploads/2025/10/id1096679-Cheryl-Gates-Warrant-Affidavit.pdf","notes":"English sworn officer affidavit mirrored by a news publisher; both pages read and visually inspected. Private street addresses, contact information and operational details omitted from metadata.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.wbtv.com/2025/10/13/school-therapist-tried-drug-husband-mecklenburg-county-documents-reveal/","notes":"English article body inspected for geographic metadata only. No translation required.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.charlottenc.gov/cmpd/News-Information/Newsroom/New-page-96","notes":"English official police release body inspected. Police location alone was not used to establish event or court country.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-therapist-husband-poison-attempt/","notes":"English article body inspected for geographic metadata only. No translation required.","access":"read","language":"en"}]},"name":"Gates case: alleged poisoning attempts and ChatGPT research","summary":"An officer affidavit records one husband's report of incapacitation in two alleged drink-contamination incidents in North Carolina in July and August 2025. Investigators allege that the accused used ChatGPT for related research. Actual chatbot replies and their influence on the alleged conduct were not established in this review.","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-08-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2025-10-13","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["harm_to_others"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The officer affidavit records one husband’s report of incapacitation in two alleged beverage-contamination incidents. The accused’s use of ChatGPT for research is alleged; the actual chatbot replies and any clinical findings were not inspected.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"outward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The affidavit identifies one husband who reported incapacitation in two alleged contamination incidents. Count him once. The inspected sources establish criminal proceedings against the accused AI user, but do not establish a separate AI-related harm to her. Exact describes the number of people reported harmed within this dossier, not independently proven harm or causation.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NC","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-therapist-husband-poison-attempt/","primarySourceLabel":"CBS News","firstPublishedAt":"2026-08-09T04:30:12.472253+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:02.408457+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["criminal","adult","violence","poisoning","chatgpt","openai","us","north-carolina"]}]}