{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T07:23:59.745Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"discipline","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":2,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":3,"minors":0,"coreRelations":3,"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-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"]}]}