{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-27T07:08:06.895Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"financial_loss","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":6,"coverage":{"cases":6,"countries":3,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":6,"minors":0,"coreRelations":5,"contextualRelations":6,"mixedRelations":5,"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-czech-constitutional-court-fines-lawyer-for-complaint-citing-non-existent-rulings-drafted-with-ai-tool","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"I.ÚS 3004/25 ze dne 1. 12. 2025; jako povinnému se ukládá pořádková pokuta ve výši 25 000 Kč; Pokutu uložil pouze ve čtvrtině zákonného rozpětí, neboť se povinný hrubého ztížení postupu řízení před Ústavním soudem dopustil poprvé a vadu podání lze ještě odstranit.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 1 December 2025 the presiding judge of a Constitutional Court chamber fined the lawyer 25,000 crowns for grossly obstructing proceedings, at a quarter of the statutory range because it was a first failing and the defect could still be remedied.","causal_attribution":"The fine responded to the filing; the order attributes the defects to the lawyer's failure to verify presumed AI output."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"V ústavní stížnosti argumentoval celkem 12 rozhodnutími Ústavního soudu a Evropského soudu pro lidská práva. Po pečlivém prostudování ústavní stížnosti Ústavní soud zjistil, že podstatná část z těchto rozhodnutí vůbec neexistuje a část je povinným hrubě dezinterpretována.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint argued from 12 decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, a substantial part of which did not exist and part of which were grossly misinterpreted.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's own verification."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"To vede Ústavní soud k domněnce, že povinný generoval podání pomocí některého z modelů umělé inteligence, poté však neověřil existenci citovaných rozhodnutí a správnost argumentace, resp. citace.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found signs of AI use in the complaint and presumed that the lawyer had generated it with an AI model and then failed to verify the citations and argument.","causal_attribution":"The order records the court's presumption of AI generation; the lawyer's confirmation is a separate claim (c4)."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Že opravdu použil při sepisování stížnosti umělou inteligenci, potvrdil INFO.CZ samotný advokát, který nad celou situací vyjádřil lítost.; Přiznává, že jeho chybou bylo, že výstup nedostatečně kontroloval a spolehl se na to, že uvedená judikatura odpovídá.; placený profesionální model AI, který nabízí některá z velkých společností provozujících komplexní právní informační systémy","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The lawyer confirmed to INFO.CZ that AI was used to write the complaint, said the output was not checked enough, and described the tool as a paid professional AI model from a large legal information system provider.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer attributes the false citations to the AI tool's output that was not checked."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Stěžovateli, prostřednictvím jeho právního zástupce, souběžně Ústavní soud zasílá výzvu k odstranění vad ústavní stížnosti, aby stěžovatel v důsledku postupu svého právního zástupce neutrpěl procesní újmu.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I.ÚS 3004/25 ze dne 30. 1. 2026; Ústavní stížnost se odmítá.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court invited the client to remedy the complaint so that the client would suffer no procedural harm, and later rejected the complaint as manifestly unfounded on 30 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"No source connects the rejection to the AI-generated citations."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Podle zdrojů INFO.CZ se kontrolní rada ČAK tímto konkrétním případem již zabývá. A to přestože se advokát soudu omluvil, pokutu zaplatil a klienta se jeho selhání nedotkne, neboť od ÚS dostal prostor na nápravu.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"Ústavní soud ocenil následný přístup advokáta, který pokutu obratem uhradil a zaslal omluvu.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The lawyer apologised and paid the fine, and the Czech Bar Association's supervisory board was reported to be examining the case.","causal_attribution":"Consequence of the fine; the bar examination rests on INFO.CZ's unnamed sources."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Pokud jde o využití AI pro přípravu podání bez kontroly zdrojů, může se skutečně jednat o kárné provinění advokáta; Ve svých důsledcích by to mohlo vést k postihování advokáta obecně za podání, které soud vyhodnotí jako nekvalitní nebo s nesprávně aplikovanou judikaturou","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Czech Bar Association's president said using AI for a filing without checking sources may be a disciplinary offence, while the bar expressed reservations about courts fining lawyers for filings they judge to be of poor quality.","causal_attribution":"Context and a qualification of the sanction, not a causal claim."}],"effects":[{"label":"fined 25,000 crowns by the Constitutional Court over non-existent and misinterpreted rulings in an AI-drafted complaint","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"case reported to be under examination by the bar association's supervisory board","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=1-3004-25_1","kind":"court_decision","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Order dated 1 December 2025 in the NALUS database; the client and lawyer are named in the order and are not reproduced here.","independence_group":"czech-constitutional-court-order-i-us-3004-25-dec-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=1-3004-25_2","kind":"court_decision","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Resolution dated 30 January 2026 in the NALUS database.","independence_group":"czech-constitutional-court-resolution-i-us-3004-25-jan-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.info.cz/zpravodajstvi-a-komentare/ustavni-soud-pokuta-advokat-umela-inteligence-ai","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). INFO.CZ broke the story and interviewed the fined lawyer; later reports relay its interview.","independence_group":"info-cz-lawyer-interview-dec-2025"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.info.cz/zpravodajstvi-a-komentare/pokuta-advokat-ai-justice-cak-vyhrady","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Follow-up article with statements of the Czech Bar Association president and the presidents of the two top courts.","independence_group":"info-cz-bar-reaction-dec-2025"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://advokatnidenik.cz/2025/12/12/generativni-ai-prinesla-k-soudum-take-halucinace-ai-v-pravnich-podanich/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"cs","translation_note":"Read in Czech on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Bar Association journal article credited to the ČTK news agency.","independence_group":"ctk-advokatni-denik-dec-2025"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The name of the AI tool and its provider; the lawyer declined to name it.","The date the complaint was filed (INFO.CZ says it reached the court in October 2025).","The outcome of the Czech Bar Association supervisory board's examination, if any."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint was filed with, and the fine imposed by, the Czech Constitutional Court; the reports describe the lawyer as practising in Prague. Residence is not recorded as a country of the affected person.","court_countries":["CZ"],"event_countries":["CZ"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse consequence of AI use: the Constitutional Court's order fines a lawyer for a complaint whose non-existent citations it presumes were generated with an AI model, and the lawyer confirmed using a paid legal AI tool without checking its output.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-26"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Constitutional Court's order finds that a substantial part of the 12 decisions cited in the complaint did not exist, identifies signs of AI-generated text, and presumes the lawyer generated the filing with an AI model without verifying it; the lawyer confirmed to INFO.CZ that an AI tool, a paid professional model from a legal information system provider, was used and that its output was not checked enough. The tool's output reached the lawyer and went into the complaint (communicated_with), and the court read those invented authorities and fined the lawyer for them (informed_decision_about). The provider is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Czech Constitutional Court fines a lawyer 25,000 crowns over a complaint citing non-existent rulings; the lawyer says a paid legal AI tool drafted it","summary":"On 1 December 2025 the presiding judge of a chamber of the Czech Constitutional Court fined a Prague lawyer 25,000 crowns (a quarter of the statutory maximum) for grossly obstructing proceedings. The lawyer had filed a constitutional complaint, for a client refused a temporary residence permit, that argued from 12 decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights; the court found that a substantial part of them did not exist and part were grossly misinterpreted. The order says the complaint showed signs of generative AI and that the court presumed the lawyer had generated it with an AI model and then failed to verify the citations. The lawyer confirmed to INFO.CZ that an AI tool was used, described it as a paid professional model from a legal information system provider, said the output was not checked enough, and expressed regret. The court invited the client to correct the complaint so that the client would suffer no procedural harm; the complaint was later rejected as manifestly unfounded on 30 January 2026. INFO.CZ reported on 10 December 2025 that the lawyer had apologised and paid the fine and that the Czech Bar Association's supervisory board was examining the case.","incidentDate":"2025-12-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-12-03","aiSystem":"A paid professional AI model offered by a legal information system provider, used to draft a constitutional complaint (provider not named; the court inferred generative AI from the text and the lawyer confirmed its use)","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Constitutional Court's order, a lawyer whose complaint cited non-existent and misinterpreted rulings, which the court presumed were AI-generated and the lawyer says came from a paid legal AI tool, was fined 25,000 crowns; INFO.CZ reported that the bar association's supervisory board was examining the case.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the lawyer fined by the Constitutional Court. The court invited the client to remedy the complaint so that the client would suffer no procedural harm, and INFO.CZ reports that the client was not affected, so the client is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CZ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=1-3004-25_1","primarySourceLabel":"Czech Constitutional Court, order I. US 3004/25 imposing a disciplinary fine (1 December 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-26T03:09:43.763021+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-26T03:09:43.763021+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["czechia","legal-profession","hallucinated-citations","court-fine","constitutional-court"]},{"id":"2026-udmurtia-entrepreneur-fined-by-russian-intellectual-property-court-over-ai-invented-case-law","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Суд установил, что часть из приведенных предпринимателем в тексте кассационной жалобы 12 ссылок на судебную практику, в том числе одна якобы на правовую позицию, изложенную в определении Верховного суда РФ, относилась к несуществующим судебным актам либо содержала приписанные им выводы; наложил на предпринимателя судебный штраф в размере 5 тысяч рублей","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Суд по интеллектуальным правам оштрафовал на пять тысяч рублей индивидуального предпринимателя из Удмуртии, который сослался в своей жалобе на несуществующую практику.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Court for Intellectual Property Rights found that part of the 12 case-law references in the entrepreneur's cassation appeal, including one said to be a position of the Supreme Court of Russia, referred to non-existent court acts or attributed conclusions to them, and imposed a court fine of 5,000 roubles.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings as relayed by its press service and by Rossiyskaya Gazeta; the ruling itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Бизнесмен пояснил, что при подготовке кассационной жалобы использовал сервис, работающий на основе искусственного интеллекта.; Именно нейросеть подобрала судебную практику","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"несуществующую судебную практику, сгенерированную сервисами искусственного интеллекта","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The entrepreneur explained that he had prepared the cassation appeal with an AI-based service, which selected the case law he cited.","causal_attribution":"His own explanation to the court, reported by Rossiyskaya Gazeta; the press service describes the case law as generated by AI services."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Защита предпринимателя заявила, что у него нет юридического образования, поэтому он не мог самостоятельно оценить корректность ссылок.; Оправдаться не получилось.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"представитель заявителя жалобы уверял, что допущенные им неточности и технические ошибки вследствие использования сервисов искусственного интеллекта не свидетельствуют о неуважении к суду; СИП критически оценил аргументы заявителя","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"His side argued that he had no legal education and could not check the references, and that the inaccuracies were technical errors caused by using AI services rather than contempt of court; the court rejected these arguments.","causal_attribution":"The appellant's defence and the court's rejection, as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"fined 5,000 roubles for contempt of court over AI-invented case law in his appeal","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://1prime.ru/20260827/biznesmen-872750520.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ru","translation_note":"Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200) and translated by that agent; no human translator or reviewer read it. PRIME (RIA Novosti group) report of 27 Aug 2026 quoting the court's press service (bodies/ru-prime-sip.html/.txt).","independence_group":"sip-press-service-ria"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://rg.ru/2026/09/01/nejroset-podvela.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ru","translation_note":"Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200) and translated by that agent; no human translator or reviewer read it. Rossiyskaya Gazeta report of 1 Sep 2026 that quotes the court's ruling and describes the parties' explanations (bodies/ru-rg-neiroset.html/.txt).","independence_group":"rg-sip-ruling"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The date of the ruling; it was reported on 27 August 2026.","Which AI service was used and what it produced beyond the citations described.","Whether the fine was appealed."],"geography":{"basis":"The recorded events are court events in Russia: the appeal was filed with, and the fine imposed by, Russia's Court for Intellectual Property Rights (PRIME; Rossiyskaya Gazeta). Both reports describe the entrepreneur as being from Udmurtia, a Russian region.","court_countries":["RU"],"event_countries":["RU"],"affected_person_countries":["RU"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with, with informed_decision_about): by his own account an AI-based service selected case law for an entrepreneur's cassation appeal, part of it did not exist, and the court fined him 5,000 roubles, as reported from the court's press service and the ruling.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"By the entrepreneur's own explanation to the court, an AI-based service selected the case law in his cassation appeal, and PRIME (RIA Novosti), reporting the court's press service, describes that case law as generated by AI services; the court's own findings as quoted do not mention AI. The court found that part of the references pointed to court acts that do not exist or misstated them, and fined him for it. The AI service is not named, and its output was read only as described in the reports.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Russian intellectual property court fined an Udmurtia entrepreneur 5,000 roubles over non-existent case law he said an AI service selected, reports say","summary":"Russia's Court for Intellectual Property Rights fined an individual entrepreneur from Udmurtia 5,000 roubles for contempt of court after finding that part of the 12 references to case law in his cassation appeal, including one said to be a Supreme Court position, pointed to court acts that do not exist or attributed conclusions to them, the court's press service told RIA Novosti on 27 August 2026. Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports that the entrepreneur explained he had prepared the appeal with an AI-based service that selected the case law, and that his side argued he had no legal education and could not check the references; the court rejected the argument that the errors were technical. The date of the ruling and the AI service are not reported.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-27","aiSystem":"An AI-based service, not named in the reports, that the entrepreneur said selected the case law for his cassation appeal","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"An entrepreneur was fined 5,000 roubles for contempt of court after his cassation appeal cited non-existent case law that, by his account, an AI-based service had selected.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the entrepreneur who used the AI service and was fined (court press service; Rossiyskaya Gazeta).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"RU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://1prime.ru/20260827/biznesmen-872750520.html","primarySourceLabel":"PRIME (RIA Novosti), 27 Aug 2026: court fines businessman over fake case law generated by AI","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:20:50.098873+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:20:50.098873+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated-citations","court-filing","court-fine","russia","own-use","russian-language"]},{"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":"2026-arizona-appeals-court-strikes-self-represented-appellants-ai-hallucinated-citations-orders-fees-sanction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In his opening brief with the Court of Appeals, he made eight citations. The court found that six of them were deficient; two were cases that “simply do not exist.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The self-represented appellant's opening brief made eight citations; the court found six deficient, including two cases that do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings as reported by the Arizona Mirror."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"readily acknowledged that he relied on generative AI to write his brief; he admitted he did nothing to independently verify the citations","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations he acknowledged relying on generative AI to write the brief and admitted doing nothing to verify the citations.","causal_attribution":"The appellant's own acknowledgement, recorded in the opinion and reported by the Arizona Mirror."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Accordingly, citing a hallucinated case in a legal filing is sanctionable conduct; traceable to dealing with the fake citations; appeal was also rejected because there were no supportive legal authorities for his claims once the inaccurate and false citations were stricken","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable regardless of intent, ordered him to pay the portion of the other party's attorney's fees traceable to the fake citations, and rejected the appeal because no supportive authority remained once the citations were struck.","causal_attribution":"The court's ruling as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The three-judge panel noted that court rules allow for more severe sanctions, including contempt charges and monetary fines.; isn’t a trained legal professional, it opted to narrowly sanction him","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court chose this narrow sanction over contempt or fines because he said he did not intend to deceive and is not a trained legal professional.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"brief citations struck, appeal rejected and fee sanction ordered","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://kiowacountypress.net/content/arizona-court-appeals-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases-can-get-you-sanctioned-no-matter-your","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); no translation was needed. Republication of the Arizona Mirror (States Newsroom) report.","independence_group":"arizona-mirror-report-jul-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which generative AI tool the appellant used.","The amount of the fee award, which depended on the other party's documentation."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in, and the sanction imposed by, the Arizona Court of Appeals in a Maricopa County probate appeal. Residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the Arizona Mirror's report of the Court of Appeals opinion of 15 July 2026: a self-represented appellant acknowledged relying on generative AI to write a brief that cited nonexistent cases, and the court struck the citations, rejected the appeal and ordered him to pay the fees they caused. The parties are private persons and are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The appellant acknowledged in a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations that he relied on generative AI to write his opening brief, which the court found cited two nonexistent cases and misstated others; the AI-generated text reached him (communicated_with), and the court read the fabricated citations, struck them, rejected the appeal for want of authority and imposed a fee sanction for them (informed_decision_about). The tool is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona appeals court strikes a self-represented appellant's AI-hallucinated citations, rejects his probate appeal and orders him to pay fees as a sanction","summary":"In a published opinion of July 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals found that a self-represented appellant's opening brief in a probate dispute contained eight citations, six of them deficient, including two cases that do not exist. In a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations he acknowledged relying on generative AI to write the brief and said he did nothing to verify the citations. The court struck the inaccurate and false citations, rejected the appeal because no supportive authority remained, held that citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable whether or not it is intended, and ordered him to pay the share of the other party's attorney's fees traceable to the fake citations. Because he said he did not intend to deceive and is not legally trained, the court chose this narrow sanction over contempt or fines. It described the opinion as the first published Arizona ruling on generative AI hallucinations in filings.","incidentDate":"2026-07-15","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-07-19","aiSystem":"Generative AI, not identified in the report, that the appellant said he relied on to write his opening brief, which cited two nonexistent cases and misstated others","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court, the appellant's AI-drafted brief cited nonexistent cases; the citations were struck, the appeal was rejected and he was ordered to pay the share of the other party's attorney's fees caused by the fake citations.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used generative AI and was sanctioned.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AZ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://kiowacountypress.net/content/arizona-court-appeals-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases-can-get-you-sanctioned-no-matter-your","primarySourceLabel":"Arizona Mirror (States Newsroom), republished by Kiowa County Press, July 2026: Arizona Court of Appeals on sanctions for fake AI-generated cases","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-18T03:14:48.762612+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-18T03:14:48.762612+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated-citations","self-represented-litigant","appeal","sanction","attorney-fees","arizona"]},{"id":"2026-alabama-supreme-court-dismisses-family-trust-appeal-over-lawyer-ai-hallucinated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'filed briefs in this appeal that contain numerous invalid, inaccurate, and/or irrelevant citations to legal authorities'; 'They appear to be artificial-intelligence (\"AI\") \"hallucinations,\" i.e., fake authorities created by an AI system'; 'Most of the legal authorities in the briefs are misquoted or nonexistent'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellants' lawyer filed briefs whose citations the court found numerous, invalid, inaccurate or irrelevant, most of them misquoted or nonexistent, and which the court said appear to be AI hallucinations.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'first use of an AI research tool that summarized commentary not readily available through standard legal databases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, the lawyer attributed two misquotations to an AI research tool that summarised commentary.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's statement as quoted in the opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall admitted that many of the legal authorities in his briefs do not exist and that he improperly used AI to obtain those authorities'; 'Hall also informed the Court that he had self-reported his actions to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At the 4 February 2026 show-cause hearing the lawyer admitted that many authorities in his briefs did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them, and said he had self-reported to the Alabama State Bar.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Because those briefs are grossly deficient under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal'; 'the dismissal of this appeal is imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts before us'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed the appeal because the briefs were grossly deficient, and said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall is hereby ordered to pay attorney fees and costs'; 'in the amount of $17,200'; 'Hall is ordered to pay double costs'; 'We also refer Hall to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered the lawyer to pay $17,200 in attorney fees and costs and double costs of the appeal, and referred him to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'SELLERS, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I do not agree that dismissal of the appeal is appropriate as a sanction for the conduct of a lawyer'; 'I would affirm the judgment of the Mobile Circuit'; 'MENDHEIM, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I concur in the dismissal of this appeal'; 'His representation on appeal was of no benefit to them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Justice Sellers, concurring in part and dissenting in part, disagreed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for a lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits; Justice Mendheim, who concurred in the dismissal, wrote that the lawyer's representation on appeal was of no benefit to the clients.","causal_attribution":"Two separate opinions in the same record; neither is the court's holding."}],"effects":[{"label":"two appellants' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on AI-obtained authorities that were fake or misquoted","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 and double costs, barred from filing alone in the court and referred to the state bar","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from CourtListener's archived copy of this court PDF (storage.courtlistener.com, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext) because the court portal URL returned HTTP 403 to the agent; no translation was needed.","independence_group":"alabama-supreme-court-sc-2025-0106"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the lawyer used; the opinion names none.","Whether the dismissal changed the clients' substantive position; the trial court's summary judgment stands, the main opinion does not decide the merits, and one justice would have affirmed the judgment.","The outcome of the Alabama State Bar referral."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama on appeal from the Mobile Circuit Court. The appellants' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the Supreme Court of Alabama's opinion establishes that it dismissed two appellants' appeal as a sanction after their lawyer filed briefs built on fabricated authorities that he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI, and that it sanctioned the lawyer and referred him to the state bar. The opinion was read in full.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found the briefs' authorities appeared to be AI hallucinations, the lawyer admitted at the show-cause hearing that he had improperly used AI to obtain authorities that do not exist, and his reply-brief footnote quoted by the court says an AI research tool misattributed quotations. The AI output reached the court through the briefs, and the court dismissed the clients' appeal because those briefs rested on fabricated authorities (informed_decision_about for the clients); the lawyer received the fabricated output from the tool (communicated_with) and was sanctioned.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Alabama Supreme Court dismisses two siblings' family-trust appeal as a sanction after their lawyer admits using AI that produced fake citations","summary":"On 24 April 2026 the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an appeal by two siblings in a family dispute over living trusts because their lawyer, W. Perry Hall, had filed briefs in which most of the legal authorities were misquoted or did not exist. The court said they appeared to be AI hallucinations, and at a show-cause hearing in February 2026 Hall admitted that many authorities did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them. The court ordered Hall to pay the opposing party's fees and costs of $17,200 and double appeal costs, barred him from filing in the court without a co-signing attorney and referred him to the Alabama State Bar. It said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts. One justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, objected to dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the judgment against the clients on the merits.","incidentDate":"2026-04-24","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-04-24","aiSystem":"An AI research tool that, according to the lawyer's reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, summarised legal commentary and misattributed quotations; the lawyer admitted using AI to obtain authorities that do not exist. No product is named in the opinion","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI research tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the siblings' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on authorities that were misquoted or did not exist, which he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI; the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 in fees and costs plus double appeal costs and was referred to the state bar.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user: the appellate lawyer, sanctioned and referred to the bar. Two other people: the two appellants whose appeal was dismissed. The appellee, whose fees were reimbursed, is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","primarySourceLabel":"Supreme Court of Alabama, opinion in SC-2025-0106 (released 24 April 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","alabama","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","appeal-dismissed"]},{"id":"2026-ninth-circuit-immigration-lawyers-suspended-over-ai-hallucinated-citations-board-reciprocal-suspension","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sethi filed an opening brief in this case with multiple fabricated citations and quotations'; 'Sethi cited two cases that do not exist and never existed'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The opening brief filed for the asylum petitioners and signed by Sethi cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to real opinions that do not contain them.","causal_attribution":"The court's own finding in its order."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'to which Rounds said that AI “was not used.”'; 'Rounds finally conceded that it was “possible” that AI might have been used by the individual who drafted the briefs'; 'Sethi Law Group employs law school graduates, who are not yet licensed attorneys, to write briefs'; 'that no licensed attorney read the cases cited by the unlicensed brief writer'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At oral argument Rounds said AI was not used and later conceded it was possible that the person who drafted the briefs had used AI; the drafter was an unlicensed law graduate whose citations no licensed attorney read.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the oral argument and of the attorneys' response."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'that the errors were the product of unauthorized AI use by their Brief Writers and a failure to cite check'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Responding to the order to show cause, the attorneys conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by their brief writers and a failure to check citations.","causal_attribution":"The attorneys' concession as recorded by the court; no AI tool, prompt or output was identified."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Neither of them suspected the use of generative AI because the Firm prohibited its use and required the Brief Writers to check all their citations'; 'it is beyond belief that he knew for a fact that it was not used'; 'is owed to this repeated failure of candor'; 'We do not sanction Sethi and Rounds for the simple fact that they or'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The attorneys said that at the time of the motion to correct they did not suspect AI because the firm prohibited its use; the court found that Rounds could not have known AI was not used, said it was not sanctioning AI use as such, and attributed the severity of discipline to their repeated failure of candour.","causal_attribution":"The attorneys' explanation and the court's findings, both from the order."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sethi and Rounds are each personally sanctioned in the amount of $2,500'; 'Sethi and Rounds are hereby suspended from practice before this Court for a period of six months starting ten days after this Order is filed'; 'provide a copy of this Order to their clients'; 'serve a copy of this Order on the State Bar of California'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Ninth Circuit fined each attorney $2,500, suspended both from practice before the court for six months, ordered them to give the order to their clients in every pending case, and directed service of the order on the State Bar of California.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's order."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Board hereby suspends the respondent from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and DHS for 6 months, effective June 13, 2026.'; 'On July 1, 2026, the Board granted the Joint Petition for Immediate Suspension.'; 'previously issued unpublished on September 15, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Board of Immigration Appeals suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and DHS for six months, effective 13 June 2026, after granting an immediate suspension on 1 July 2026, and designated the decision as precedent after first issuing it unpublished on 15 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the Board's decision."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the respondent contests the sufficiency of the evidence that he knew that certain errors in his filings were caused by the use of artificial intelligence'; 'the respondent’s claims of hardship to his clients are conclusory'; 'the application of our rules of attorney discipline to misconduct related to the use of AI is not an “outlier penalty,” as the respondent claims'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Before the Board, Sethi disputed that he knew AI had been used and argued that suspension would harm his clients and was an outlier penalty for AI-related misconduct; the Board rejected these arguments.","causal_attribution":"The respondent's arguments and the Board's ruling as stated in the decision."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The petition for review, which we granted'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court granted the asylum petitioners' petition for review.","causal_attribution":"The court's statement; it does not address any effect of the sanctions on the clients."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys were fined and suspended from practice before a federal appeals court, and one was suspended from immigration practice, over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and false statements about them","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from the court's own site (HTTP 200, PDF text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"ninth-circuit-order-24-4790"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463666/dl?inline","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from the court's own site (HTTP 200, PDF text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"bia-matter-of-sethi"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the brief writers used; the order records only the attorneys' concession that AI use was probable.","Whether the State Bar of California opened proceedings after the referral.","Whether the suspensions affected the attorneys' clients; the Board found the hardship claims conclusory and no source describes a harmed client.","The date the opening brief was filed; the inspected sources do not state it."],"geography":{"basis":"The briefs were filed in and sanctioned by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the reciprocal suspension was imposed by the US Board of Immigration Appeals; the order describes the firm as based in Orange County, California. The attorneys' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a court decision about two attorneys informed by AI-generated fabricated authorities in their briefs: the Ninth Circuit's order fines and suspends two attorneys for filing briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and for repeatedly denying the AI source, and the Board of Immigration Appeals imposes a reciprocal suspension on one of them. Both records were read in full from the courts' own sites.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is two courts' response to AI use in filings: the Ninth Circuit order describes briefs with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations, records the attorneys' concession that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's brief writers, and imposes fines and a six-month suspension for filing them and for repeatedly denying the AI source; the Board of Immigration Appeals imposed a reciprocal suspension on that basis. The court read the fabricated authorities in the briefs, identified them and based its discipline of the two attorneys on filing them and on their statements about their source, so the AI output informed a decision about them (informed_decision_about); no tool is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows","summary":"On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2026-06-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-06-03","aiSystem":"Generative AI that, according to the attorneys' concession recorded by the Ninth Circuit, the firm's unlicensed brief writers probably used against firm policy; no tool is named in the order or the Board's decision","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Ninth Circuit's order, both attorneys were fined $2,500 and suspended from practice before the court for six months over briefs whose AI-hallucinated citations they had denied were AI errors; according to the Board of Immigration Appeals, one of them was then suspended from practice before the immigration courts, the Board and DHS for six months.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two attorneys, each named in the Ninth Circuit order as fined and suspended; the Board's reciprocal suspension concerns one of them. The asylum applicants are not counted: the court granted their petition for review and no source reports harm to them.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, order in No. 24-4790 (3 June 2026): attorney discipline over AI-hallucinated citations","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:02:36.457192+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:02:36.457192+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","legal-profession","sanction","suspension","hallucinated-citations","immigration"]}]}