{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T07:21:06.868Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"discipline","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":5,"coverage":{"cases":5,"countries":3,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":3,"minors":2,"coreRelations":5,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":2,"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":"2023-massachusetts-high-school-pupil-penalised-for-submitting-ai-text-with-invented-citations-federal-court-refuses-to-undo-penalties","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"indiscriminately copied and pasted text that had been generated by Grammarly.com ... (“Grammarly”), a publicly available AI tool, into their draft script. ... in the submission consists of a citation to a nonexistent book ... citation to Grammarly, and no acknowledgement that AI of any kind had been used.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found, on the preliminary record, that the pupil and a partner copied and pasted text generated by Grammarly, a publicly available AI tool, into the script for an AP U.S. History project, including citations to nonexistent books, without acknowledging any AI use.","causal_attribution":"The court's preliminary finding; the plaintiffs disputed whether the school's AI rules were clear."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the website flagged parts of the ... submission as AI-generated. ... two additional AI detection tools, which also indicated ... admitted that he had used Grammarly to “generate ideas” and","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the order, Turnitin flagged parts of the submitted script as AI-generated, the teacher's follow-up with revision-history and two further AI detection tools indicated AI generation, and a school official's affidavit says the pupil admitted using Grammarly to generate ideas and create portions of the script.","causal_attribution":"School officials' account as recorded by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The students received failing grades on two parts of the multi-part project, but ... was required to attend a Saturday detention, and in the ... spring of 2024, he was rejected from the school’s National Honor Society, although he was ... ultimately permitted to reapply and has since been admitted. ... grade of 78.75 (equivalent to a C-plus).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The pupil received failing grades on two parts of the project, was required to attend a Saturday detention, and in spring 2024 was rejected from the school's National Honor Society, although he was later allowed to reapply and was admitted; his year grade in the course was a C-plus.","causal_attribution":"none"},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"about its standards for academic honesty as they apply to the use of AI, that ... from a C-plus to a B. ... For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The parents sued teachers, school officials and the school committee, asking the court to expunge the detention and raise the grade, and contended that the school had not adequately told the pupil how its academic honesty rules applied to AI; the court denied a preliminary injunction on 20 November 2024.","causal_attribution":"none"},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"image of the filed stipulation: STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE ... with prejudice as to all claims and all parties, waiving the right to appeal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to all claims and all parties, waiving appeal, in February 2025.","causal_attribution":"none"}],"effects":[{"label":"failing project grades, a Saturday detention and an initial National Honor Society rejection after submitting AI-generated text with invented citations","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.275605/gov.uscourts.mad.275605.30.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (CourtListener RECAP copy of ECF 30, HTTP 200, 47 pages); no translation. Memorandum and order of 20 November 2024 on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, based on affidavits, exhibits and hearing testimony from both sides; its findings are preliminary.","independence_group":"d-mass-1-24-cv-12437-pi-order"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.275605/gov.uscourts.mad.275605.40.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Image-only scan (CourtListener RECAP copy of ECF 40, HTTP 200); the page was rendered and read visually by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23 because no text layer or OCR was available; no human reviewer read it. Stipulation of dismissal filed 6 February 2025.","independence_group":"d-mass-1-24-cv-12437-stipulation"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["education","justice"],"unknowns":["The pupil's own account of how he used the tool, beyond the plaintiffs' positions recorded in the order.","Whether the school changed its AI guidance afterwards."],"geography":{"basis":"The pupil attended Hingham High School in Massachusetts, where the project was submitted and the discipline imposed; the suit was in the District of Massachusetts.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with): according to a federal court's preliminary findings, a pupil submitted text and invented citations generated for him by an AI writing tool and the school penalised him; the court refused to undo the penalties and the suit was dismissed with prejudice. The pupil is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found, on the preliminary record, that the pupil copied text that Grammarly, an AI tool, had generated for him into his project script, including citations to books that do not exist, and the school penalised him for submitting it as his own; the invented citations were among the evidence. Turnitin and two further AI detection tools also flagged the script as AI-generated, and a school official says he admitted using Grammarly.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Massachusetts: federal court refuses to undo a high school's penalties on a pupil found to have submitted Grammarly AI text with invented citations","summary":"In late 2023 a junior at a public high school in Hingham, Massachusetts, and a classmate submitted a script for an AP U.S. History project that, a federal court later found on a preliminary record, contained text copied from Grammarly, a publicly available AI tool, including citations to nonexistent books, with no acknowledgement of AI use. Turnitin and other AI detection tools had flagged the script, and a school official says the pupil admitted using Grammarly. In December 2023 the school treated it as cheating: the pupil failed two parts of the project, served a Saturday detention and was rejected from the National Honor Society in spring 2024, though he was later admitted. His parents sued, arguing the school had not made its AI rules clear; on 20 November 2024 the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts refused a preliminary injunction to undo the penalties, and in February 2025 the parties dismissed the case with prejudice.","incidentDate":"2023-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2024-03-20","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-11-20","aiSystem":"Grammarly, described by the court as a publicly available AI tool, whose generated text and invented citations the pupil copied into a project script; Turnitin and two further AI detection tools flagged the script","aiProduct":"Grammarly (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A pupil found by the court, on a preliminary record, to have submitted Grammarly-generated text with invented citations failed two project parts, served a detention and was initially refused National Honor Society membership; his family's suit to undo the penalties failed.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the pupil whose discipline the suit concerned (ECF 30). The partner student is not counted because the order describes no suit or consequence detail for that student beyond the shared failing grades, and is not identified.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.275605/gov.uscourts.mad.275605.30.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 1:24-cv-12437, memorandum and order denying a preliminary injunction, 20 Nov 2024 (ECF 30)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:24:44.992123+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:24:44.992123+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["school","ai-writing-tool","academic-integrity","discipline","lawsuit","hallucinated-citations"]},{"id":"2025-sixth-circuit-removes-appointed-defence-lawyer-over-cocounsel-drafted-briefs-delaying-indigent-defendants-appeal","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'qualified for a two-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines for his leadership role during drug-trafficking activities.'; 'serving as court-appointed counsel for an indigent defendant through a publicly funded program'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act represented an indigent defendant appealing a two-level leadership enhancement to his drug-trafficking sentence in the Sixth Circuit.","causal_attribution":"The court's own description of the appointment and the appeal."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The first tell was the file name of the principal brief:'; '“CoCounsel Skill Results.” CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw’s internal artificial-intelligence'; 'But the purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The first tell was the file name of the principal brief: \"CoCounsel Skill Results.\" CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw's internal artificial-intelligence platform.'; 'But the purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources.'; 'misrepresent the holdings of both United States v. Washington'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results', that three quotations in the briefs appear in no legal authority, and that the briefs misrepresented the holdings of two precedents.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings, quoted verbatim in the Volokh post; the opinion PDF carries the same text."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he directed an unnamed “staff” member to'; 'upload district court documents to Westlaw’s CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the'; 'repeated that same process for the reply brief.'; 'He concedes that the three inaccurate quotations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'he directed an unnamed \"staff\" member to upload district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the principal brief.'; 'He concedes that the three inaccurate quotations identified above were the product of artificial intelligence, that they do not appear in any legal authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer admitted that a staff member uploaded district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel to create a first draft of the principal brief, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the three inaccurate quotations were produced by artificial intelligence and not verified.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's show-cause response as the court records it; the court's opinion documents the admission."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'shall not be compensated under the Criminal Justice Act for his time spent on'; 'to consider disciplinary proceedings under Sixth'; 'Disciplinary Clerk for the Kentucky Bar Association'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered that the lawyer receive no Criminal Justice Act compensation for the appeal, forwarded the opinion to the circuit's chief judge to consider disciplinary proceedings, and served it on the Kentucky Bar Association's disciplinary clerk.","causal_attribution":"The court's orders."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'different appellate counsel to file new briefs—further delaying resolution of'; 'reset the briefing schedule upon appointment of replacement counsel.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"By a separate order the same day the court removed the lawyer, directed the appointment of replacement counsel, locked the briefs he had filed and reset the briefing schedule, which the court said further delayed resolution of the defendant's criminal appeal.","causal_attribution":"The court's own account of its separate order and of the delay."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'utilizing Westlaw CoCounsel “in this way for a Court of Appeals brief.”'; 'has never been disciplined over his 40-year career'; 'candor in acknowledging his improper use of artificial intelligence.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'first time utilizing Westlaw CoCounsel \"in this way for a Court of Appeals brief.\"'; 'has never been disciplined over his 40-year career'; 'his candor in acknowledging his improper use of artificial intelligence.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer said this was his first use of CoCounsel in this way for an appeals brief and that he had not been disciplined in a 40-year career; the court acknowledged his timely response and candour while finding his conduct inexcusable.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's explanations and the court's assessment, as the opinion records them; recorded as mitigation."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'***LOCKED PURSUANT TO ORDER ENTERED 04/03/2026***APPELLANT BRIEF filed by'; 'Certificate of Service: 10/21/2025. Argument Request: not requested. [25-5623]'; '***LOCKED PURSUANT TO ORDER ENTERED 04/03/2026***REPLY BRIEF filed by Attorney'; 'Certificate of Service: 12/26/2025. [25-5623]'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The docket records that the principal brief for the defendant was filed on 21 October 2025 and the reply brief on 26 December 2025, and that both entries were locked under the order of 3 April 2026.","causal_attribution":"Clerk docket entries; they date the filings and do not describe their contents."}],"effects":[{"label":"indigent defendant's criminal appeal delayed while replacement counsel files new briefs","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"},{"label":"court-appointed lawyer denied compensation for the appeal and referred for disciplinary consideration","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0105p-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Sixth Circuit published per curiam opinion, No. 25-5623, decided and filed 3 April 2026; PDF read in full (HTTP 200).","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-opinion-3-apr-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/04/09/the-first-tell-was-the-file-name-of-the-principal-brief-cocounsel-skill-results/","kind":"commentary_with_filing_excerpt","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Volokh Conspiracy (Reason), 9 April 2026, quoting the same opinion at length; read in full (HTTP 200). Same origin as the opinion.","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-opinion-3-apr-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?q=docket_id%3A70724463%20BRIEF&type=rd","kind":"court_docket_index","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"CourtListener search API listing of docket entries for Sixth Circuit No. 25-5623 (RECAP), read on 2026-10-19 (HTTP 200); entry descriptions as entered by the clerk. Party and counsel names in the entries are not reproduced.","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-docket-25-5623"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["How long the appeal is delayed, and the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the lawyer practises in Kentucky (opinion).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published with communicated_with and informed_decision_about: the court documents that a court-appointed defence lawyer filed briefs drafted with Westlaw's CoCounsel that carried quotations found in no authority, and, acting on those briefs, removed him, ordered new counsel and briefing that delayed the indigent defendant's criminal appeal, and denied him compensation. The harm reaches a criminal defendant who did not use the tool.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and that three quotations in the briefs appear in no legal authority. The lawyer admitted that a staff member used Westlaw's CoCounsel to produce the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations were produced by artificial intelligence. Reading those briefs, the court removed him, ordered new counsel and new briefs for the defendant, and denied him compensation.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Sixth Circuit removes court-appointed defence lawyer over CoCounsel-drafted briefs with false quotations, delaying an indigent defendant's appeal","summary":"In a published opinion of 3 April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed the briefs a lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act had filed for an indigent defendant appealing a sentencing enhancement in a drug-trafficking case. The court noticed that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and found three quotations that appear in no legal authority and misstatements of two precedents. The lawyer admitted that a staff member had used Westlaw's CoCounsel to create the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations came from artificial intelligence he did not verify. The court denied him compensation for the appeal, referred the opinion for possible disciplinary proceedings and to the Kentucky Bar Association, and by separate order removed him, locked his briefs and ordered replacement counsel to file new ones, which it said further delayed resolution of the defendant's appeal. The court acknowledged his candour and his 40 years without discipline.","incidentDate":"2025-10-21","incidentEndDate":"2026-04-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-04-03","aiSystem":"Westlaw CoCounsel (Thomson Reuters), used by a lawyer's staff member to produce the first drafts of a principal and a reply brief","aiProduct":"CoCounsel","aiCompany":"Thomson Reuters","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court documents that briefs drafted with Westlaw's CoCounsel and filed unverified by a court-appointed lawyer led it to remove him and order new counsel and briefs, further delaying an indigent defendant's criminal appeal; the lawyer was denied compensation for the appeal and referred for disciplinary consideration.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two: the defendant, whose appeal the court says was further delayed, and the lawyer, who was denied compensation and referred. The lawyer's staff member ran the tool and is not counted; no other harmed person is described.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0105p-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 25-5623, opinion decided and filed 3 April 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-19T03:16:56.688661+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-19T03:16:56.688661+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal","ai-fabricated-quotations","court-appointed-counsel","criminal-appeal","sanction","cocounsel"]},{"id":"2024-florida-judicial-candidate-shared-likely-ai-fake-call-of-justices-suspended","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'She referenced a former court employee’s book — which she hadn’t read — and sent the paper a link to the author’s website with a deepfake recording of a conversation between Florida Supreme Court justices and the Ninth Judicial Circuit chief judge.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'referenced the book when trying to obtain an endorsement from the South Florida Sun Sentinel during her 2024 judicial election campaign, according to a May 9 notice of ethics charges' and 'She supplied the fake recording, purportedly of a conversation involving two Florida Supreme Court justices, when the newspaper’s editorial board questioned the book’s claims.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"During her 2024 judicial campaign, while seeking the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board's endorsement, the candidate supplied a recording purportedly of a conversation between Florida Supreme Court justices and the Ninth Judicial Circuit's chief judge when the board questioned her claims.","causal_attribution":"Bloomberg Law's account of the case and the ABA Journal's report of the commission's notice both derive from the record of the same disciplinary proceeding, so the claim is recorded as reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'“The recording is fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative-AI,” the notice of charges says. “While the voices resemble those of the purported participants, the manner of speech, tone, and much of the content are objectively unrealistic.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'“The recording is fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative-AI. While the voices resemble those of the purported participants, the manner of speech, tone, and much of the content are objectively unrealistic,” the notice said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Judicial Qualifications Commission's notice of charges said the recording was fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative AI, and that while the voices resemble those of the purported participants, the manner of speech, tone and much of the content are objectively unrealistic.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets quote the same notice, so this is one origin. The commission states AI generation as likely, alongside computer manipulation; no forensic analysis or creator is reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'she provided a link to a “fabricated phone call” between two justices — Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and Justice Renatha Francis — and the 9th Circuit’s chief judge, Lisa Munyon, Friday’s notice said' and 'your actions eroded public confidence by perpetuating a false perception of illegal, unethical, or immoral conduct by justices of the Florida Supreme Court, a chief judge, and others working within the judicial branch,” the notice said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The notice named Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, Justice Renatha Francis and Chief Judge Lisa Munyon as the purported participants and said the candidate's actions perpetuated a false perception of illegal, unethical or immoral conduct by justices of the Florida Supreme Court, a chief judge and others in the judicial branch.","causal_attribution":"The notice's own characterisation of the harm to the depicted judges, reported by one outlet."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Peffer admitted to listening to a portion of the recording and sharing it publicly “despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity,” according to the notice.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'testifies during her ethics violation hearing at the Broward County Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale on Dec. 16, 2025' and '\"I cannot justify or explain why now listening to it I thought it was a valid piece of content at the time, but I did,\" she said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'Peffer gave this statement to Law.com:' and 'my reference to content created by a third party—to whom I have absolutely no ties—was a violation of the Judicial Canons' and 'I take responsibility for my actions and apologize for the unfortunate effects the reference may have caused my fellow judiciary members.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the notice, the candidate listened to only a portion of the recording and shared it publicly despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity. In a statement reported in May 2025 she apologised and said the content was created by a third party with whom she had no ties, and at the December 2025 hearing she testified that she could not explain why she had thought it was valid content.","causal_attribution":"The notice's findings and the candidate's own statements; each part rests on a single report of its origin."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A Florida trial judge has been suspended for 30 days and fined $10,000' and 'her conduct undermined public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary by promoting false accusations against the judiciary of the Ninth Judicial Circuit and by implicating sitting Florida Supreme Court justices,” the opinion said.' and 'Justices Carlos G. Muñiz and Renatha S. Francis, who had their voices spoofed in the call, recused from the decision.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Florida Supreme Court, in an unauthored opinion issued on 9 October 2026, suspended the judge for 30 days and fined her $10,000, saying her conduct undermined public confidence in the judiciary by implicating sitting Florida Supreme Court justices; Justices Muñiz and Francis, whose voices were spoofed in the call, recused.","causal_attribution":"Reported by Bloomberg Law from the opinion, which was not inspected; the sanction concerns the candidate's own conduct in sharing the recording."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Florida's courts watchdog agency has recommended a 30-day suspension, a public reprimand and a $10,000 fine' and 'perpetuated a false and undignified perception of the judiciary that ensnared not only those justices and judges who were specifically named in the Book and the Recording'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The commission's hearing panel recommended a 30-day suspension, a public reprimand and a $10,000 fine, writing that the judge had perpetuated a false and undignified perception of the judiciary that ensnared the justices and judges named in the book and the recording.","causal_attribution":"The hearing panel's filing as reported in one outlet."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Francis, Muñiz, and Munyon all said the recording was fake.' and 'The Sentinel reported last year that it and several other alleged fakes were referred to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office for a criminal investigation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Florida Politics reported that Chief Justice Muñiz, Justice Francis and Chief Judge Munyon all said the recording was fake, and that the Sun Sentinel had reported the previous year that it and several other alleged fakes were referred to the Orange County Sheriff's Office for a criminal investigation.","causal_attribution":"The depicted judges' statements as reported by one outlet; who made the criminal referral and its outcome are not reported."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Disposition (SC) - Suspended/Public Reprimand (JQC - Before FSC)' and '2026-10-09T14:35:48.780Z' and 'the Court hereby approves the hearing panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations to this Court.' and 'Respondent, Lauren Nichole Peffer, is hereby fined $10,000.00 and is suspended for 30 days from her duties as a judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit.' and 'We order Respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings' and 'Respondent shall also receive a public reprimand, which will be accomplished by publication of this order.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 9 October 2026 the Florida Supreme Court approved the hearing panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations, fined the judge $10,000, suspended her for 30 days, ordered her to pay the costs of the proceedings and imposed a public reprimand to be accomplished by publication of the order.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's docket entry for the disposition; the sanction concerns the judge's own conduct in sharing the recording."}],"effects":[{"label":"a fabricated recording imitating the voices of two Supreme Court justices and a chief judge was presented to a newspaper editorial board in a judicial campaign","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the judicial watchdog said it perpetuated a false perception of misconduct by the judges it depicted","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the candidate who shared it was later suspended for 30 days and fined","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/florida-judge-suspended-over-deepfake-call-mimicking-justices","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 on news.bloomberglaw.com (HTTP 200). The page shows the article text through the case citation and then a login prompt; any later text was not inspected. No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"bloomberg-law-peffer"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/florida-judge-is-accused-of-sharing-objectively-unrealistic-fake-recording-with-editorial-board","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 on abajournal.com (HTTP 200). No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"aba-journal-peffer"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://flaglerlive.com/lauren-peffer-fake/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 on flaglerlive.com, which carries the News Service of Florida report (HTTP 200). No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"news-service-of-florida-peffer"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/florida-judge-cited-deepfake-call-180000031.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 on the Yahoo News syndicated copy (provider Tampa Bay Times), HTTP 200. Yahoo and the Tampa Bay Times canonical URL date the copy 10 October 2026, while its text describes the hearing panel recommendation filed \"Friday\" (the Florida Supreme Court docket lists the findings and recommendations on 27 February 2026), so the text appears to republish earlier reporting. No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"tampa-bay-times-peffer"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://floridapolitics.com/archives/737787-broward-judge-faces-charges-for-sharing-deepfake-recording-unread-e-book-during-campaign/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the verification agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from an Internet Archive capture of 12 May 2025 (the live page returned HTTP 403). It reports the commission's notice of charges and earlier Sun Sentinel reporting. No translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"florida-politics-peffer"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://acis.flcourts.gov/portal/court/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/case/ac1415dc-cff8-4197-9e1f-db5cd39262a3","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket entry texts read in English by the verification agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 through the public data interface behind this docket page. The documents attached to the entries (the notices of charges, the hearing panel findings and the disposition order) sit behind an automated challenge and were not opened. No human reviewer inspected the text.","independence_group":"florida-supreme-court-docket-sc2025-0647"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","elections","public_life"],"unknowns":["Who created the recording and with what tool or method; the commission says computer manipulation or generative AI.","The date in 2024 when the recording was supplied to the editorial board; Florida Politics says the Sun Sentinel reported on the recording in July 2024.","Whether the hearing panel's findings, which the Florida Supreme Court approved, or the court's order attribute the recording to AI; neither document was opened.","How widely the recording circulated, who referred it for criminal investigation and with what result, and whether the depicted judges reported any consequence beyond saying it was fake."],"geography":{"basis":"The recording was supplied to the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board during a campaign for a Broward County court seat in Florida, and the depicted judges sit on the Florida Supreme Court and Florida's Ninth Judicial Circuit, per all inspected reports. The disciplinary proceeding was decided by the Florida Supreme Court.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"News reports of the disciplinary proceeding (Bloomberg Law on the Supreme Court decision; the ABA Journal, the News Service of Florida and Florida Politics on the commission's notice of charges) describe a recording imitating the voices of two justices and a chief judge, presented to an editorial board in a judicial campaign. The commission, which examined the recording, said it was fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative AI, and said it created a false perception of misconduct by the depicted judges. AI involvement is recorded as suspected.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, which examined the recording in bringing charges, stated in its notice that the recording \"is fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative-AI\", and that the voices resemble those of the purported participants while the manner of speech, tone and content are objectively unrealistic. Bloomberg Law reports that the two justices \"had their voices spoofed in the call\". The recording's imitation of the judges' voices is what presented them as discussing the book and is the basis of the commission's finding of a false perception of misconduct. The commission's attribution is hedged between computer manipulation and generative AI, its technical basis beyond listening to the recording is not disclosed, and no creator or tool is identified.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Florida: judge suspended for sharing, as a 2024 candidate, a fabricated call of justices the judicial watchdog says was likely computer-manipulated or AI-made","summary":"While campaigning in 2024 for a Broward County court seat, Lauren Peffer, now a county judge, sought the endorsement of the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board. Asked to back her claim of an image crisis in Florida's judiciary, she cited a self-published book by a fired employee of the Ninth Judicial Circuit and supplied a recording purportedly of a phone call about the book between Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, Justice Renatha Francis and the circuit's chief judge, Lisa Munyon. The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission's notice of formal charges, filed in May 2025, said the recording was fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative AI, and that while the voices resembled those of the participants, the manner of speech, tone and much of the content were objectively unrealistic. The notice said she had shared it despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity and had perpetuated a false perception of illegal, unethical or immoral conduct by the justices, a chief judge and others in the judicial branch. Peffer apologised, said the content was created by a third party with whom she had no ties, and testified that she could not explain why she had thought it valid. According to Bloomberg Law, the Florida Supreme Court on 9 October 2026 suspended her for 30 days and fined her $10,000, saying her conduct undermined public confidence in the judiciary by implicating sitting justices; the two justices whose voices were faked recused. Who made the recording, and with what tool, is not reported.","incidentDate":"2024-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-05-11","aiSystem":"An audio recording, posted on a website associated with a former court employee, that faked the voices of two Florida Supreme Court justices and a circuit chief judge. The Judicial Qualifications Commission's notice of charges said it was fabricated, likely using computer manipulation or generative AI. No tool or creator is identified in the inspected reports.","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Judicial Qualifications Commission's notice of charges and the Florida Supreme Court opinion as reported, a fabricated recording that imitated the voices of two Supreme Court justices and a circuit chief judge was presented to a newspaper editorial board during a judicial campaign, and the notice said it perpetuated a false perception of illegal, unethical or immoral conduct by those judges. The candidate who shared it was later suspended and fined. All three judges said the recording was fake, according to Florida Politics; no further consequence for them is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people: the two Florida Supreme Court justices and the circuit chief judge whom the recording purported to capture, named in the FlaglerLive report of the notice of charges; Florida Politics reports that all three said the recording was fake. The candidate who shared the recording is not counted as harmed by it; newspaper staff and the public are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-FL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/florida-judge-suspended-over-deepfake-call-mimicking-justices","primarySourceLabel":"Bloomberg Law, 9 October 2026: FL Judge Suspended Over Deepfake Call Mimicking Justices","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:18:31.150274+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:18:31.150274+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfake","voice-impersonation","judiciary","election","florida","public-figure","judicial-discipline"]},{"id":"2025-ontario-lawyer-chatgpt-factum-invented-cases-contempt-referral-licence-suspension","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On May 1, the applicant’s counsel presented a motion seeking relief in this application. During oral submissions, she delivered a factum and cited cases to support the applicant’s arguments.'; 'The judge asked the lawyer if AI like ChatGPT supported the preparation of the factum. She said she would have to ask her clerk.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'After the hearing, the judge again reviewed the factum and found two more incorrect citations — one to a non-existent case and another to a case that stood for the opposite proposition than that for which it had been cited.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'When Justice Myers confronted her in open court about whether she had used ChatGPT, she categorically denied it, stating, “I did not.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'whether she had used ChatGPT to write her factum'; 'said she had not.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"At a motion hearing on 1 May 2025 in an Ontario Superior Court of Justice estate and family-law application, the applicant’s lawyer relied in writing and orally on a factum citing cases that the judge could not find or that did not support the propositions cited; asked whether AI such as ChatGPT had been used, the lawyer said, according to Canadian Lawyer and LawSites, that she would have to ask her clerk, while Law360 Canada and the tribunal reasons as reported by Law Times say she denied using ChatGPT.","causal_attribution":"Account of the court’s first endorsement (2025 ONSC 2766) as relayed by two legal-press outlets, with the lawyer’s answer in court given differently by Law360 Canada and by the tribunal reasons as reported by Law Times; the endorsement itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'factum may have been created by AI and that before filing the factum and relying on it in court, she might not have checked to make sure the cases were real'; 'the judge ordered the attorney to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'counsel was ordered to return for a show cause hearing to argue why she should not be cited for contempt of court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judge found that the factum appeared to have been created by AI and not checked, and ordered the lawyer to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt of court.","causal_attribution":"The court’s own statement, as quoted by LawSites and summarised by Cassels."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'At an informal scheduling conference on May 16, 2025, counsel was forthright in admitting her error and provided an explanation.'; 'In a written decision released on May 20, 2025, the Court found it unnecessary to continue with contempt proceedings'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'explaining that her staff had used ChatGPT to prepare the factum without her knowledge. She apologized for the mistake and promised to complete at least six hours of continuing professional education in legal ethics and technology.'; 'suffered a public shaming near the end of an unblemished career,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"After telling the court that her staff had used ChatGPT to prepare the factum without her knowledge, apologising and undertaking continuing professional education, the lawyer had the show-cause order withdrawn in a decision released on 20 May 2025, which noted that she had suffered a public shaming near the end of an unblemished career.","causal_attribution":"The court’s second decision (2025 ONSC 2965) as summarised by Cassels and recited in the tribunal reasons reported by Law Times."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'admitting the truth: there was no student.'; 'The new disclosure raises issues of deception of the court in a contempt of court proceeding. The procedural context and the quality of the acts are very different.'; 'the court appointed amicus curiae Dean Embry to ensure'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'revealing that she alone prepared the AI-assisted factum, reversing her prior claim that others were involved. The court treated this as a fresh act of potential contempt and referred the matter to the Attorney General.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"On 30 September 2025 the lawyer wrote to the court that she alone had prepared the factum using ChatGPT and that her earlier account blaming staff was untrue; on 4 December 2025 the court referred the matter to the Attorney General of Ontario for criminal contempt proceedings and appointed an amicus curiae.","causal_attribution":"The court’s third decision (2025 ONSC 6785) as described by Law360 Canada and WeirFoulds; both relay the same decision."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'will have her license to practise law suspended for six months starting July 17. The tribunal'; 'to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario'; 'containing only non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an artificial intelligence tool” and later lying to the court about not using the tool.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 16 July 2026 the Law Society Tribunal suspended the lawyer’s licence for six months from 17 July and ordered her to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario, finding that she relied on a factum containing only non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an AI tool and later lied to the court about not using the tool.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal’s order as reported by Law Times; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the lawyer failed to serve her client in a family law matter by using ChatGPT to prepare a factum containing AI-hallucinated case citations and arguments.'; 'Later, she admitted that she had prepared the factum herself and did not know hallucinations existed until Myers confronted her about her submissions.'; 'we are extremely troubled by the lawyer’s subsequent repeated lies to the court and to the law society'; 'had little to no prior experience with ChatGPT'; 'That case remains ongoing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The tribunal’s reasons, as reported, say the lawyer failed to serve her client by using ChatGPT to prepare a factum containing hallucinated citations and arguments, that she had prepared the factum herself with little or no prior experience of ChatGPT, that her repeated lies to the court and the Law Society troubled the tribunal more than the reliance, and that the criminal contempt case remained ongoing.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal’s reasons as reported by Law Times; the reasons themselves were not read."}],"effects":[{"label":"show-cause order for contempt, referral for criminal contempt and a six-month licence suspension after relying on ChatGPT-generated nonexistent case law","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/family/superior-court-says-family-law-case-factum-may-have-fake-legal-citations-due-to-ai-hallucinations/392433","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Canadian Lawyer, 13 May 2025, reporting the first endorsement (2025 ONSC 2766); HTTP 200. The endorsement itself (CanLII) returned 403 live and from the Internet Archive.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/2025/05/ai-hallucinations-strike-again-two-more-cases-where-lawyers-face-judicial-wrath-for-fake-citations.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. LawSites (LawNext), 14 May 2025, summarising the same endorsement; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://cassels.com/insights/fantasies-in-the-footnotes-ontario-court-rebukes-counsel-for-fake-and-misleading-ai-generated-case-citations/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Cassels law-firm commentary, 23 May 2025, summarising 2025 ONSC 2766 and 2025 ONSC 2965; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/2419185","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Law360 Canada analysis, 8 Dec 2025, describing 2025 ONSC 6785 and quoting it; HTTP 200 (full text served).","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.weirfoulds.com/pdf-article?id=36828","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. WeirFoulds law-firm article PDF, 23 Dec 2025, on 2025 ONSC 6785; HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/law-society-tribunal-temporarily-suspends-lawyers-license-after-finding-she-lied-about-chatgpt-use/393450","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Law Times, 16 Jul 2026, on the Law Society Tribunal order; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"law-society-tribunal-order-and-reasons-2026"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/out-of-character-tribunal-explains-six-month-suspension-of-lawyer-who-lied-about-chatgpt-use/393453","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Law Times, 21 Jul 2026, on the tribunal reasons; HTTP 200. The tribunal order and reasons themselves were not read.","independence_group":"law-society-tribunal-order-and-reasons-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The outcome of the criminal contempt proceeding referred to the Attorney General; the latest source read (21 July 2026) says it remained ongoing.","Whether the client suffered any concrete consequence in the estate application; the tribunal found the lawyer failed to serve her client but no source read describes an effect on the case.","Which ChatGPT version was used and what prompts produced the citations.","The court endorsements and the tribunal order and reasons were not read directly (CanLII returned 403); all claims rest on legal-press and law-firm accounts of them."],"geography":{"basis":"The factum was filed and argued at a hearing of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the lawyer is described as a Toronto lawyer licensed by the Law Society of Ontario, whose tribunal suspended her.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":["CA"]},"publication":{"basis":"Legal-press and law-firm accounts of three Ontario Superior Court decisions and a Law Society Tribunal order describe a lawyer who relied on ChatGPT-generated nonexistent case law in a factum, was ordered to show cause for contempt, later admitted she alone had used ChatGPT and had misled the court, was referred for criminal contempt and was suspended for six months.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawyer told the court in September 2025 that she alone prepared the factum using ChatGPT, and the Law Society Tribunal, as reported by Law Times, found that she relied on a factum containing only non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an AI tool and that she used ChatGPT to prepare it. ChatGPT’s output (citations to cases that do not exist or do not support the propositions) reached the lawyer, who filed it and relied on it orally at the 1 May 2025 hearing; the court’s contempt proceedings and the tribunal’s suspension followed from that reliance and from her later false account of it. The tribunal’s main concern was her dishonesty, which is a separate act by the lawyer.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Ontario: lawyer who relied on ChatGPT-invented case law in a factum was referred for criminal contempt and suspended for six months, legal press reports","summary":"An Ontario lawyer relied, at a 1 May 2025 Superior Court hearing in an estate and family-law matter, on a factum citing cases that do not exist or do not support the propositions cited. The judge ordered her to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt, then withdrew the order on 20 May 2025 after she said her staff had used ChatGPT without her knowledge. On 30 September 2025 she told the court that she alone had prepared the factum with ChatGPT and that her earlier account was untrue; the court referred the matter to Ontario’s Attorney General for criminal contempt proceedings in December 2025. In July 2026 the Law Society Tribunal suspended her licence for six months, finding she relied on AI-generated non-existent case law and lied about it. The account comes from legal-press and law-firm reports of the decisions; the criminal contempt case was still ongoing at the last report read.","incidentDate":"2025-05-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-05-13","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which the lawyer admitted using to prepare the factum and which the Law Society Tribunal found generated the non-existent or irrelevant case law","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to legal-press reports of the court and tribunal decisions, the lawyer faced a contempt show-cause order and a referral for criminal contempt, and the Law Society Tribunal suspended her licence for six months and ordered her to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario; the court noted she had suffered a public shaming near the end of an unblemished career.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the lawyer who used ChatGPT, is reported to have suffered the contempt proceedings and the suspension. The tribunal found she failed to serve her client, but no source read describes a concrete consequence for the client, who is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/out-of-character-tribunal-explains-six-month-suspension-of-lawyer-who-lied-about-chatgpt-use/393453","primarySourceLabel":"Law Times, 21 Jul 2026: tribunal explains six-month suspension of lawyer who lied about ChatGPT use","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:48.661937+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:48.661937+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","lawyer_sanction","contempt_of_court","professional_discipline","canada","ontario"]},{"id":"2024-incheon-teacher-deepfake-student-sentence","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'인천지법 형사1단독(부장판사 이창경)은 16일 선고공판에서... A(10대)군에게 장기 2년, 단기 1년6개월의 징역형을 선고했다'; '40시간의 성폭력 치료 프로그램 이수와 아동·청소년 관련 기관 취업제한 5년'; '도주 우려 등을 이유로 A군을 법정구속했다'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'장기 2년∼단기 1년6개월의 징역형을 선고하고 법정 구속했다'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'장기 2년, 단기 1년6개월의 징역형을 선고하고 법정 구속했다. 소년법상 만 19세 미만 미성년자에게는... 부정기형이 내려진다.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 16 September 2026 the Incheon District Court (Criminal Division 1, Judge 이창경) sentenced the teenage defendant to an indeterminate term of 2 years maximum / 1 year 6 months minimum for violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (editing and distributing false sexual images), ordered 40 hours of treatment and a five-year child-institution employment ban, and detained him in court.","causal_attribution":"Sentence reported identically by three outlets from the sentencing hearing."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'2024년 8월 인공지능을 이용해 교사 5명의 얼굴을 나체사진에 합성한 뒤 사회관계망서비스(SNS)에 유포한 혐의'; '모두 11명의 허위영상물을 35차례 제작'; ''지인 능욕'을 테마로 한 텔레그램 대화방'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'2024년 8월 인공지능(AI) 기술을 이용해 교사와 학생들의 얼굴을 나체 사진에 합성한 혐의'; '교사 5명과 함께 태권도 학원에 다닌 여중생 등 총 11명을 대상으로 35차례에 걸쳐 합성물을 제작, 텔레그램 '지인 능욕' 대화방 등에 유포'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'2024년 인천의 한 중학교에 재학하던 중 딥페이크 기술을 이용해 교사 등 20여명의 얼굴을 나체 사진과 영상에 합성한 뒤 SNS에 유포한 혐의' (the prosecution's figure of about twenty).","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In 2024, while a middle-school student in Incheon, he used AI deepfake technology to composite the faces of five teachers and six female middle- and high-school students from his taekwondo academy onto nude photographs and videos, 35 productions of 11 people in all, and distributed them in Telegram 'acquaintance humiliation' chat rooms.","causal_attribution":"Court findings as reported; the 11-in-35 count is Hankyoreh's and Munhwa's, and Newsis's 'about twenty' is the prosecution's charge description."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'자신의 담임교사에게 \"연락처와 사진이 지워졌다\"고 속여 사진을 받아내는 등 치밀하게 범행을 준비한 것으로 조사됐다'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"He obtained his homeroom teacher's photographs by telling her that his contacts and photos had been deleted.","causal_attribution":"Investigation finding reported by Munhwa Ilbo only."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Judge: '반포한 교사 5명의 합성 사진과 영상물에는 피해자의 얼굴이 그대로 드러나 있고 실명, 나이, 학교, 교과목도 명시돼 있다'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Judge: '피해 교사들의 얼굴뿐 아니라 실명, 학교, 휴대전화 번호까지 명시해 반포했다'; '피해자들이 장기간 심리치료를 받는 등 상당한 트라우마를 겪고 있는 점'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Judge: '피해교사들은 말할 수 없는 충격을 받고 트라우마를 겪고 있으며 A군의 엄벌 탄원하고 있다'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'합성물에는 피해 교사의 얼굴뿐 아니라 이름과 나이, 학교, 담당 교과목이 적혀 있었고 일부에는 휴대폰 번호와 인스타그램 아이디도 담겼다'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The distributed images showed the teachers' faces together with their real names, ages, schools, subjects and phone numbers, and the court found the teachers are suffering considerable trauma and receiving long-term psychological treatment.","causal_attribution":"The judge's sentencing remarks as reported by three outlets; phone numbers appear in Munhwa's and Hankook Ilbo's accounts; Hankook Ilbo adds Instagram IDs on some."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'A군은 지역교권보호위원회가 열리기 일주일 전 자퇴해 학교 차원의 별다른 징계 처분은 받지 않았다'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'피해 교사들은 올해 1월에야 피해 사실을 인지했으나, A 군은 교권보호위원회가 열리기 전 자퇴해 학교 측의 징계를 피했다'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'ㄱ군은 교권보호위원회가 열리기 전 자퇴해 징계 처분을 받지 않았다'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"He withdrew from school a week before the regional teachers'-rights protection committee met and received no school discipline; the teachers learned of the images only in January 2026.","causal_attribution":"The withdrawal is reported by all three; the January 2026 discovery by Munhwa only."},{"id":"c6","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'검찰이 구형한 부정기형 장기 3년6개월∼단기 2년은... 그러나 이날 선고는 검찰 구형에도 미치지 못했다'; the superintendent's pledge.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'인천교사노동조합은 입장문을 내고... 이번 선고에 깊은 유감을 표한다'; the superintendent: '법적·심리 치료 지원과 함께... 예방교육도 강화하겠다'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Incheon Teachers' Union expressed regret that the sentence fell below the prosecution's request of 3 years 6 months to 2 years; the superintendent of education attended and pledged legal and psychological support and prevention education.","causal_attribution":"Statements reported by two outlets."},{"id":"c7","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'22일 인천교사노조에 따르면 교사 A씨 등 2명은 최근 학생 졸업사진 촬영과정에서 학교로부터 함께하자는 요구를 받았다.'; 'A씨 등은 전근 사유를 밝히지 않아 지금 학교는 피해사실을 모르는 것으로 전해졌다. 사정을 밝히지 못한 A씨 등은 결국 사진을 촬영했다.'; 'B군은 A씨 등 교사·학생 11명의 사진으로 성착취물을 제작·유포했으며 16일 장기 2년~단기 1년6개월의 징역을 선고받았다.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'딥페이크 성범죄 피해 교사 2명이 옮긴 고등학교에서'; '피해 사실을 밝히지 않으면 촬영에 응해야 하고, 거부하려면 피해 사실을 설명해야 하는 분위기 속에서 결국 사진을 찍을 수밖에 없었다고 호소했다'; '이들 교사 2명은 2024년 발생한 10대 A군의 딥페이크 성범죄 피해 교사 5명에 포함된 피해자들이다.'; '사진 촬영과 게재가 교직원의 자율적 선택에 따라 이뤄질 수 있도록 하는 절차를 마련하라'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"On 22 September 2026 the Incheon Teachers' Union said two of the five victim teachers in this case, who had transferred to other schools without disclosing the reason, were recently asked by their new schools to join graduation-album photo sessions and took the photographs because refusing would have required explaining the victimisation; the union asked the education office to make staff photo sessions a voluntary choice.","causal_attribution":"The union's statement of 22 September as reported by two separately bylined outlets, each of which ties the two teachers to this sentenced case; Hankook Ilbo frames it as a tip received by the union. Not independently confirmed by the schools."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'등의 말로 촬영 압박을 받았다는 제보가 접수됐다'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'거절 사유를 밝히지 않도록 강제하는 제도망을 갖추도록 요구했다'; '강요 분위기도 일지 않도록 대책을 강구하겠다'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Hankook Ilbo reports the union as saying the pressure came with remarks such as 'let's leave memories' and 'don't spoil the mood' at the high schools the two teachers had moved to, while Kyeonggi Ilbo attributes such remarks to an atmosphere in some schools generally; Kyeonggi Ilbo also reports the union's demand that reasons for refusal need not be disclosed, and an education-office official's reply that the office would devise measures to ensure thorough consent procedures and prevent a coercive atmosphere.","causal_attribution":"Union and education-office statements as reported by each outlet."}],"effects":[{"label":"teachers and students depicted in AI-composited sexual images distributed with their names, schools and phone numbers; long-term trauma treatment","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"two victim teachers pressed into graduation-album photographs at their new schools because refusing would have meant disclosing the deepfake victimisation (union account, 22 September 2026)","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.newsis.com/view/NISX20260916_0003791674","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Read in Korean on 2026-09-16 (datePublished 2026-09-16T10:51+09:00; Incheon bureau reporter 이루비; '종합' consolidated report). Model reading; no human bilingual review.","independence_group":"newsis"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/area/capital/1278039.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Read in Korean on 2026-09-16 (datePublished 2026-09-16T11:00+09:00). Model reading; no human bilingual review.","independence_group":"hani"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.munhwa.com/article/11617393","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Read in Korean on 2026-09-16 (datePublished 2026-09-16T10:51+09:00). Model reading; no human bilingual review.","independence_group":"munhwa"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.kyeonggi.com/article/20260922580361","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Read live in Korean on 2026-09-23 (Kyeonggi Ilbo, 박기웅, 22 September 2026 15:43; a Daum copy is identical): the Incheon teachers' union's account that two victim teachers were asked to join graduation-photo sessions after transferring. Model reading; no human bilingual review.","independence_group":"kyeonggi-ilbo"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.hankookilbo.com/news/article/A2026092210370000589","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Read live in Korean on 2026-09-23 (Hankook Ilbo, 이환직, 22 September 2026 14:04): the union's statement of the same day and its demands to the education office. Model reading; no human bilingual review.","independence_group":"hankook-ilbo"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["education","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["The AI tool used is not named; the written judgment was not inspected.","The number of people depicted differs between the prosecution's charge description (about twenty, per Newsis) and the court reporting (eleven); eleven is used as the documented minimum.","When the distribution began and ended within 2024 and whether the additional indicted conduct extended later are not stated; the record uses August 2024 with month precision and no end date.","Whether either side appeals, and the outcome of any separate proceedings against the Telegram room operators, are not reported.","Earlier coverage of the arrest or indictment was not inspected; the reported_date is the sentencing coverage.","Korean bodies were read by the model without human bilingual review.","Which schools pressed the two teachers is not reported; the education office said it would devise measures (Kyeonggi Ilbo), and whether graduation-album procedures changed is not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: an Incheon middle school and a taekwondo academy in Incheon (Newsis: '인천의 한 중학교'); victims are Incheon teachers and students; court: Incheon District Court.","court_countries":["KR"],"event_countries":["KR"],"affected_person_countries":["KR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a harmful-artifact case with a criminal judgment: a court found that AI deepfake images of five teachers and six students were made and distributed with identifying details, and described the victims' ongoing trauma. Three separately bylined Korean outlets were read. The defendant is a minor and unnamed in the sources and here; no victim is named; the superintendent, union chair and judge are public officials. Updated 2026-09-23 with the union's report that two victim teachers were pressed into graduation-album photographs at their new schools (Kyeonggi Ilbo, Hankook Ilbo); the two teachers are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Three outlets report the court's findings that the images were made with AI deepfake (image-compositing) technology and the conviction under the false-sexual-image provisions; the specific tool is not named. The Korean bodies were read by the model; no written judgment was inspected.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Incheon, South Korea: teenager sentenced to up to two years for AI deepfake sexual images of five teachers and six students, distributed on Telegram with the victims' names and schools","summary":"On 16 September 2026 the Incheon District Court sentenced a teenage defendant to an indeterminate term of two years (maximum) to one year six months (minimum) under the Sexual Violence Punishment Act for making and distributing false sexual images, ordered a 40-hour treatment programme and a five-year ban on working with children, and took him into custody in court. As a middle-school student in Incheon in 2024 he had used AI deepfake technology to composite the faces of five teachers, including his homeroom teacher whom he tricked into sending photographs, and six female middle- and high-school students from his taekwondo academy onto nude images and videos, 35 productions in all, and distributed them in Telegram 'acquaintance humiliation' chat rooms with the victims' real names, ages, schools, subjects and, per two reports, phone numbers (Hankook Ilbo adds Instagram IDs on some). The teachers learned of the images only in January 2026; the court said they are receiving long-term psychological treatment. He had withdrawn from school a week before the teachers'-rights committee met, avoiding school discipline. The Incheon teachers' union called the sentence, below the prosecution's request, regrettable.","incidentDate":"2024-08-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-16","aiSystem":"AI deepfake image-compositing tools (not named in the inspected court reporting)","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse","psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Five teachers and six students had their faces composited by AI onto nude images and videos that were distributed on Telegram with their real names, ages, schools, subjects and phone numbers; the court found the teachers are suffering considerable trauma and receiving long-term psychological treatment.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":11,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Hankyoreh and Munhwa Ilbo both report 11 people (five teachers and six students) in 35 composites, as found by the court; Newsis reports the prosecution's charge sheet as 'about twenty', which is not used as a count. Eleven is the documented minimum.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"KR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.newsis.com/view/NISX20260916_0003791674","primarySourceLabel":"뉴시스 (Newsis), 16 September 2026, Incheon bureau: sentencing report with the judge's reasons, the superintendent's and the union's statements","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-16T03:16:35.128819+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:52.00163+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfake","south-korea","incheon","teachers","minors","telegram","criminal-sentence","depicted-or-impersonated"]}]}