{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-16T07:39:20.907Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"costs","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":2,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-massachusetts-federal-court-sanctions-out-of-state-lawyer-who-admitted-ai-drafting-brief-with-fictitious-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint on November 21, 2025'; 'Within five hours of the Enterprise Defendants' filing of the Motion to Strike'; 'The Strike Opposition was replete with inaccurate citations, including:'; 'Attributing a quotation to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation.'; 'Citing to a non-existent case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that an opposition filed on 21 November 2025 by the plaintiff's pro hac vice lawyer was replete with inaccurate citations, including a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation, and that a later opposition cited a non-existent case.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings on the filings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'admitted to using AI to draft the Strike Opposition, explaining that he believed that'; 'the enterprise-level version of AI software he was using did not hallucinate cases'; 'a PDF version of [a] prior draft of the work product rather than the final, verified document'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the order, the lawyer admitted using AI to draft the first opposition, explaining a belief that the enterprise-level version of the AI software in use did not hallucinate cases, and said a prior draft had been filed by mistake.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's admission in the response to the order to show cause, as recorded by the court. It connects the AI tool's output to the fictitious citations in that filing."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'a prolonged bout of influenza'; 'has not admitted to using AI in the Travelers and'; 'whether AI was used or not'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The lawyer did not admit using AI for the later oppositions, attributing their errors to influenza; the court held sanctions warranted whether or not AI was used for them.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the lawyer's explanation and its reasoning. The AI contribution is established only for the first opposition."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'is GRANTED and the Court imposes sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.'; 'The Court revokes Attorney'; 'pro hac vice status'; 'These fees and costs shall not exceed $10,000.'; 'impose sanctions upon local counsel'; 'Dated: September 25, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 25 September 2026 the court granted the defence motion for sanctions under Rule 11, revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered the lawyer's firm to pay the defendants' reasonable fees and costs, not exceeding $10,000; local counsel was not sanctioned.","causal_attribution":"The sanctions order itself."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'indicates that this is not an instance of mere carelessness.'; 'pattern of neglecting to confirm the accuracy of his'; 'has since implemented citation-verification procedures'; 'completed Continuing Legal Education (\"CLE\") credits on the ethical use of AI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that continued submission of false or misleading citations after notice was not mere carelessness and showed a pattern of neglecting to confirm the accuracy of submissions; it credited the lawyer's later citation-verification procedures and continuing legal education on the ethical use of AI.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings and its account of mitigation."}],"effects":[{"label":"lawyer's pro hac vice admission revoked and firm ordered to pay up to $10,000 of the defendants' fees","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.288446/gov.uscourts.mad.288446.155.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"d-mass-case-1-25-cv-12395-sanctions-order"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI product was used and how it was prompted","Whether AI was used for the two later oppositions, which the lawyer did not admit","The final amount of fees and costs, to be agreed or reported to the court by 23 October 2026","Whether the plaintiff suffered any consequence from the sanctions or the change of counsel"],"geography":{"basis":"The filings were made in, and the sanctions imposed by, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Where the lawyer drafted the filings and where the lawyer lives are not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a documented court sanction. A federal court order records a lawyer's admission that AI drafted a filing with fictitious citations, and the court revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered fees of up to $10,000. The lawyer, the plaintiff and the deceased are not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records the lawyer's admission that an AI tool was used to draft the 21 November 2025 opposition, which the court found contained a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation and other inaccurate citations. The tool's generated draft reached the lawyer, who filed it (communicated_with); the court then sanctioned the lawyer for this and two later filings. The lawyer did not admit AI use for the later filings, and the order does not name the AI product.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Massachusetts federal court revokes an out-of-state lawyer's admission and orders fees after briefs with false citations; the lawyer admitted AI drafted one","summary":"On 25 September 2026 a judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a defence motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against a California-barred lawyer admitted for one case (pro hac vice) to represent the plaintiff. The court found that an opposition the lawyer filed on 21 November 2025 was replete with inaccurate citations, including a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation, and that later oppositions cited a non-existent case. In response to the court's order to show cause, the lawyer admitted using AI to draft the first opposition and explained a belief that the enterprise-level AI software in use did not hallucinate cases. The court revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered the lawyer's firm to pay the defendants' reasonable fees and costs, capped at $10,000. The order does not name the AI product.","incidentDate":"2025-11-21","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-25","aiSystem":"An unnamed enterprise-level AI software product that the lawyer admitted using to draft a court filing, according to the sanctions order","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's order, a lawyer who admitted using AI to draft a brief that contained fictitious citations had pro hac vice admission revoked, and the lawyer's firm was ordered to pay up to $10,000 of the defendants' fees and costs.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the sanctioned lawyer, who admitted using the AI tool (claims c2 and c4). Local counsel was not sanctioned and is not counted. The plaintiff is not counted because the order describes no consequence of the sanctions for the plaintiff.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.288446/gov.uscourts.mad.288446.155.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Memorandum and Order on sanctions, Dkt. 155, case 1:25-cv-12395 (25 September 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:10:29.878255+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:10:29.878255+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","massachusetts","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","pro-hac-vice"]},{"id":"2025-quebec-appeal-court-costs-self-represented-appellant-ai-drafted-filings-nonexistent-judgments","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Elle réclame aussi 10 000 $ en dommages-intérêts'; 'références juridiques inexistantes générées par l’intelligence artificielle dans ses actes de procédure'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The respondent asked the Court of Appeal for $10,000 in damages, alleging that the appellant had included non-existent legal references generated by artificial intelligence in his filings.","causal_attribution":"The decision documents that the respondent made this request; the allegation is hers."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'parce qu’il a utilisé l’intelligence artificielle pour la rédaction'; 'déclaration d’appel et de son exposé, qui comportent deux références à des arrêts inexistants et une référence inexacte quant à un paragraphe cité'; 'L’appelant a contrevenu à cet Avis de la Juge en chef'; 'une forme de négligence plutôt que de la mauvaise foi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Ruling on the respondent's request, the court described the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph, and found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use through negligence rather than bad faith.","causal_attribution":"Finding stated in the Court of Appeal decision of 1 October 2026; the decision does not name the tool."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'une telle connaissance de la part de l’appelant n’a pas été démontrée'; 'il y a lieu de le condamner aux frais de justice en vertu de l’article 340 C.p.c.'; 'en matière familiale, de chacune'; 'REJETTE la demande visant à sanctionner un manquement au déroulement'; 'LE TOUT, avec les frais de justice en faveur de l’intimée.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because knowledge of the invented references was not shown, the court rejected the separate monetary sanction but ordered court costs against the appellant under article 340 C.p.c. to sanction the conduct.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the costs are the court's response to the AI-drafted filings."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'ACCUEILLE en partie l’appel'; 'peine de 100 heures de travail d’utilité sociale'; 'une mesure coercitive d’emprisonnement de 30 jours'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On the merits the court partly allowed the appeal for reasons unrelated to AI and reduced the contempt penalty to 100 hours of community work and 30 days of coercive imprisonment.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the contempt arose from non-compliance with family-court orders, not from AI use."}],"effects":[{"label":"a self-represented appellant was ordered to pay court costs because his AI-drafted appeal filings cited non-existent judgments","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in full in French by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from the copy of the decision hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database (PDF, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator or reviewer was involved. The locators quote the French original.","independence_group":"qcca-2026-qcca-1300-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the appellant used and what it produced beyond the two non-existent judgments and the inaccurate paragraph reference.","The amount of the court costs ordered against the appellant.","Whether the appellant has complied with the underlying orders or served the coercive imprisonment."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was heard and decided by the Quebec Court of Appeal from a Quebec Superior Court judgment (decision caption and paragraph 1), and the filings were made in that court. The decision states no residence for the appellant, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the court's own decision: the Quebec Court of Appeal described a self-represented appellant's appeal filings as written with AI and as citing non-existent judgments, held that he had breached its AI notice and ordered costs against him. The facts are documented by the decision; the appellant is a private party in a family matter and is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Ruling on the respondent's request (paragraph 28), the Quebec Court of Appeal decision describes the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and an inaccurate paragraph reference. The court treated that AI drafting and those references as established: it held that he had breached its AI notice (paragraph 30), contrasted his lack of shown knowledge of the hallucinations with an earlier case (paragraphs 31-32) and ordered costs against him for that reason. The AI output reached him as drafted text he filed (communicated_with) and informed the court's costs decision about him (informed_decision_about). The decision does not identify the tool or quote its output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Quebec Court of Appeal orders costs against a self-represented appellant whose AI-drafted filings cited two non-existent judgments (1 Oct 2026)","summary":"On 1 October 2026 the Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against a self-represented appellant in a family-law contempt appeal as a sanction for appeal filings that, in the court's description, he had written with artificial intelligence and that contained two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph. The court held that AI may be used to draft appeal filings only if the litigant verifies the authorities, found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use, and described his conduct as negligence rather than bad faith. It rejected the respondent's request for a separate $10,000 sanction and, for reasons unrelated to AI, reduced the contempt penalty imposed at first instance. The decision does not name the AI tool.","incidentDate":"2025-12-15","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-01","aiSystem":"Artificial intelligence, not identified in the decision, which the self-represented appellant used to draft his notice of appeal and brief","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against the self-represented appellant as a sanction for filings he drafted with AI that cited non-existent judgments, holding that he breached the court's AI notice through negligence (2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026). The amount of the costs is not stated.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used AI to draft the filings and against whom costs were ordered. The respondent and other family members are not counted as harmed by the AI-related sanction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Quebec Court of Appeal, Droit de la famille — 261553, 2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026 (copy hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","self_represented_litigant","costs_order","family_law","canada","quebec"]}]}