{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-18T07:47:03.201Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"lawyer","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":7,"coverage":{"cases":7,"countries":4,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":7,"minors":1,"coreRelations":6,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-massachusetts-federal-court-sanctions-out-of-state-lawyer-who-admitted-ai-drafting-brief-with-fictitious-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint on November 21, 2025'; 'Within five hours of the Enterprise Defendants' filing of the Motion to Strike'; 'The Strike Opposition was replete with inaccurate citations, including:'; 'Attributing a quotation to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation.'; 'Citing to a non-existent case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that an opposition filed on 21 November 2025 by the plaintiff's pro hac vice lawyer was replete with inaccurate citations, including a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation, and that a later opposition cited a non-existent case.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings on the filings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'admitted to using AI to draft the Strike Opposition, explaining that he believed that'; 'the enterprise-level version of AI software he was using did not hallucinate cases'; 'a PDF version of [a] prior draft of the work product rather than the final, verified document'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the order, the lawyer admitted using AI to draft the first opposition, explaining a belief that the enterprise-level version of the AI software in use did not hallucinate cases, and said a prior draft had been filed by mistake.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's admission in the response to the order to show cause, as recorded by the court. It connects the AI tool's output to the fictitious citations in that filing."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'a prolonged bout of influenza'; 'has not admitted to using AI in the Travelers and'; 'whether AI was used or not'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The lawyer did not admit using AI for the later oppositions, attributing their errors to influenza; the court held sanctions warranted whether or not AI was used for them.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the lawyer's explanation and its reasoning. The AI contribution is established only for the first opposition."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'is GRANTED and the Court imposes sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.'; 'The Court revokes Attorney'; 'pro hac vice status'; 'These fees and costs shall not exceed $10,000.'; 'impose sanctions upon local counsel'; 'Dated: September 25, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 25 September 2026 the court granted the defence motion for sanctions under Rule 11, revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered the lawyer's firm to pay the defendants' reasonable fees and costs, not exceeding $10,000; local counsel was not sanctioned.","causal_attribution":"The sanctions order itself."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'indicates that this is not an instance of mere carelessness.'; 'pattern of neglecting to confirm the accuracy of his'; 'has since implemented citation-verification procedures'; 'completed Continuing Legal Education (\"CLE\") credits on the ethical use of AI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that continued submission of false or misleading citations after notice was not mere carelessness and showed a pattern of neglecting to confirm the accuracy of submissions; it credited the lawyer's later citation-verification procedures and continuing legal education on the ethical use of AI.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings and its account of mitigation."}],"effects":[{"label":"lawyer's pro hac vice admission revoked and firm ordered to pay up to $10,000 of the defendants' fees","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.288446/gov.uscourts.mad.288446.155.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"d-mass-case-1-25-cv-12395-sanctions-order"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI product was used and how it was prompted","Whether AI was used for the two later oppositions, which the lawyer did not admit","The final amount of fees and costs, to be agreed or reported to the court by 23 October 2026","Whether the plaintiff suffered any consequence from the sanctions or the change of counsel"],"geography":{"basis":"The filings were made in, and the sanctions imposed by, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Where the lawyer drafted the filings and where the lawyer lives are not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a documented court sanction. A federal court order records a lawyer's admission that AI drafted a filing with fictitious citations, and the court revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered fees of up to $10,000. The lawyer, the plaintiff and the deceased are not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records the lawyer's admission that an AI tool was used to draft the 21 November 2025 opposition, which the court found contained a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation and other inaccurate citations. The tool's generated draft reached the lawyer, who filed it (communicated_with); the court then sanctioned the lawyer for this and two later filings. The lawyer did not admit AI use for the later filings, and the order does not name the AI product.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Massachusetts federal court revokes an out-of-state lawyer's admission and orders fees after briefs with false citations; the lawyer admitted AI drafted one","summary":"On 25 September 2026 a judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a defence motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against a California-barred lawyer admitted for one case (pro hac vice) to represent the plaintiff. The court found that an opposition the lawyer filed on 21 November 2025 was replete with inaccurate citations, including a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation, and that later oppositions cited a non-existent case. In response to the court's order to show cause, the lawyer admitted using AI to draft the first opposition and explained a belief that the enterprise-level AI software in use did not hallucinate cases. The court revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered the lawyer's firm to pay the defendants' reasonable fees and costs, capped at $10,000. The order does not name the AI product.","incidentDate":"2025-11-21","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-25","aiSystem":"An unnamed enterprise-level AI software product that the lawyer admitted using to draft a court filing, according to the sanctions order","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's order, a lawyer who admitted using AI to draft a brief that contained fictitious citations had pro hac vice admission revoked, and the lawyer's firm was ordered to pay up to $10,000 of the defendants' fees and costs.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the sanctioned lawyer, who admitted using the AI tool (claims c2 and c4). Local counsel was not sanctioned and is not counted. The plaintiff is not counted because the order describes no consequence of the sanctions for the plaintiff.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.288446/gov.uscourts.mad.288446.155.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Memorandum and Order on sanctions, Dkt. 155, case 1:25-cv-12395 (25 September 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:10:29.878255+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:10:29.878255+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","massachusetts","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","pro-hac-vice"]},{"id":"2025-alabama-federal-court-disqualifies-three-butler-snow-lawyers-over-chatgpt-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'On May 7, 2025, Defendant Dunn filed a motion for leave to take the'; 'Then, at 4:21 p.m. on May 12, 2025, Defendant'; 'In total, there were five problematic citations across two motions'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'filed two motions with five'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Two motions filed for the defendant, a former Alabama corrections commissioner, on 7 and 12 May 2025 contained five citations that did not exist or did not support the propositions for which they were cited.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's own review recorded in the sanctions order."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'possibly through the use of generative artificial intelligence.'; 'The next day, Plaintiff'; 'On May 14, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part'; 'conducted independent searches for each allegedly fabricated citation, to no avail'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the court has conducted independent searches for each allegedly fabricated citation, to no avail'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff's response of 15 May 2025 objected that defence counsel appeared to have fabricated citations, possibly through generative AI; the court searched for each citation without result and ordered the signatories and the firm to show cause.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history documented by the order; the Guardian quotes the same show-cause order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'In short, attorney Matt Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain'; 'case citations returned by ChatGPT through independent review in Westlaw or'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'failed to verify the case citations returned by ChatGPT through independent review in Westlaw or Pacer before including them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyers' response stated that partner Matthew Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain case citations for two arguments without verifying them, and Reeves declared that he did not verify the citations ChatGPT returned in Westlaw or PACER.","causal_attribution":"The statements are documented by the order; the AI's role in the citations rests on the lawyers' admission, which the court accepted."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the court PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS Mr.'; 'them from further participation in this case; and REFERS this matter to the Alabama'; 'the court exercises its discretion not to suspend them from'; 'SANCTION attorneys Daniel J. Chism and Lynette E. Potter, and the law firm'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Manasco also publicly reprimanded the lawyers; referred them to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 23 July 2025 the court publicly reprimanded three lawyers, disqualified them from the case, referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar and other licensing authorities, declined to suspend them, and released two other lawyers and the firm without sanction.","causal_attribution":"Established by the operative passages of the sanctions order; the ABA Journal relays it."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'reviewed more than 2,400 separate legal'; 'citations across 330 filings.”'; 'revealed no additional “legal citations that were fabricated,”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'No other instances of incorrect case references were found.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Butler Snow commissioned an independent review by Morgan Lewis of more than 2,400 citations across 330 filings. A Morgan Lewis partner declared that the review revealed no additional fabricated citations, and the ABA Journal reports that no other incorrect case references were found.","causal_attribution":"The scope of the review and the Morgan Lewis partner's declaration are documented by the order; the ABA Journal relays the finding."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'and in these two instances I did not comply with policy'; 'I would hope your honor would not punish my colleagues'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"At the 21 May 2025 hearing, according to The Guardian, Reeves said he was aware of the limitations on AI use and had not complied with the firm's policy in these two instances, and asked the court not to punish his colleagues.","causal_attribution":"Statements at the hearing as reported by The Guardian."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'knowledge that Matt Reeves utilized generative artificial intelligence to generate'; 'Mr. Cranford is of counsel at Butler Snow'; 'or substantive review of the legal authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The of-counsel lawyer who drafted the motions declared that he had no knowledge that Reeves had used generative AI, and the practice group leader declared that he did not conduct a detailed or substantive review of the legal authorities in the second motion.","causal_attribution":"Declarations summarised and quoted in the sanctions order."}],"effects":[{"label":"three lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified and referred to the state bar over ChatGPT-fabricated citations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677.204.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from the RECAP copy of the 51-page order (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext). The declarations, the hearing transcript (Doc. 200) and the Morgan Lewis report it cites were not read separately.","independence_group":"johnson-v-dunn-nd-ala-sanctions-order"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/24/alabama-prison-lawyers-chatgpt-butler-snow","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 (HTTP 200). The Guardian reports the 21 May 2025 show-cause hearing and quotes the court's order and Reeves's declaration.","independence_group":"guardian-butler-snow-may-2025"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/5-fabricated-cases-lead-federal-judge-to-kick-3-butler-snow-lawyers-off-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 (HTTP 200). The ABA Journal relays the 23 July 2025 order and Butler Snow's 19 May filing.","independence_group":"johnson-v-dunn-nd-ala-sanctions-order"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The outcome of the referral to the Alabama State Bar and other licensing authorities.","Which version of ChatGPT was used and what prompts produced the citations; the order records the partner's description of a search only.","Whether the disqualification delayed the plaintiff's case beyond the 30-day stay the order mentions."],"geography":{"basis":"The motions were filed in, and the sanctions imposed by, the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (sanctions order). Where the partner ran the ChatGPT search is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the federal sanctions order of 23 July 2025 documents that three defence lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified and referred to the state bar over five fabricated or unsupported citations that the lawyers confirmed were hallucinations of ChatGPT, which one partner had used without verifying.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records that three defence lawyers confirmed in writing and at a hearing that the citations were hallucinations of ChatGPT, and quotes their joint response that partner Matthew Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain case citations for two arguments without verifying them; Reeves declared that he searched ChatGPT for supporting case law and did not verify the citations it returned. The court found five citations across the two motions that do not exist or do not support the propositions cited, and sanctioned three lawyers for those false statements. The AI output therefore reached the sanctioned filings through the partner's own exchange with ChatGPT (communicated_with). The drafting lawyer declared that he did not know generative AI had been used, and the practice group leader that he did not substantively review the legal authorities.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Alabama federal judge reprimands and disqualifies three Butler Snow lawyers and refers them to the state bar over ChatGPT-fabricated citations (2025)","summary":"In an incarcerated man's lawsuit against Alabama prison officials in the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, two motions filed in May 2025 for the defence of a former Alabama corrections commissioner contained five citations that did not exist or did not support the propositions cited. Lawyers of the Butler Snow firm, which the state retains to defend its prisons, told the court that a partner had obtained the citations from ChatGPT and had not verified them. On 23 July 2025 Judge Anna M. Manasco publicly reprimanded three of the firm's lawyers, disqualified them from the case and referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar, and ordered them to give the order to clients, opposing counsel and judges in all their pending cases. She declined to suspend them and released the firm and two other lawyers without sanction.","incidentDate":"2025-05-07","incidentEndDate":"2025-07-23","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-24","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which a Butler Snow partner told the court he used to search for supporting case law; the order records the citations as hallucinations of ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's sanctions order of 23 July 2025, three Butler Snow lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified from the case and referred to the Alabama State Bar after two motions contained citations that the lawyers confirmed were hallucinations of ChatGPT, which one of them had used and not verified.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Three lawyers sanctioned in the 23 July 2025 order: the partner who declared that he used ChatGPT (counted as the AI user) and the drafting lawyer and the practice group leader, whose own use of ChatGPT is not established (counted as other people harmed). The firm and the two lawyers released without sanction are not counted; the plaintiff and the defendant are not counted as harmed by the AI use.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677.204.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Johnson v. Dunn, No. 2:21-cv-01701, Sanctions Order (Doc. 204), 23 July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:01:17.679643+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:01:17.679643+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["alabama","federal-court","prison-litigation","lawyers","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","disqualification","bar-referral"]},{"id":"2025-johannesburg-high-court-refers-applicant-lawyers-to-legal-practice-council-over-ai-tool-fictitious-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'two cases cited in Northbound Processing'; 'were fictitious'; 'the revised version contained two additional incorrect citations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'heads of argument contained fictitious case citations that appeared to have been generated by artificial intelligence'; 'contained two additional incorrect citations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"While preparing judgment in Northbound Processing's urgent application against the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator, the acting judge found that two cases cited in the applicant's heads of argument did not exist, and a corrected version supplied by junior counsel contained two further incorrect citations.","causal_attribution":"The judgment as described by ITWeb and by a law-firm alert; both rest on the same judgment, which was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'acknowledged that the non-existent citations likely originated from an AI tool'; 'he had used a tool called'; 'which claimed to be trained solely on South African legal sources'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'counsel acknowledged the use of AI, accepted full responsibility'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On the court's direct inquiry, junior counsel acknowledged that the non-existent citations likely originated from an AI tool and said a tool called Legal Genius had been used under deadline pressure.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's statement to the court as relayed by ITWeb; the law-firm alert relays the acknowledgment without naming the tool."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'found no intent to deceive the court'; 'be referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'a referral to the Legal Practice Council for investigation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge accepted the legal team's apologies and found no intent to deceive the court, but ordered that the conduct of Northbound's legal practitioners be referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation.","causal_attribution":"The court's order as described by both accounts of the judgment."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'While Northbound ultimately succeeded in obtaining the relief sought'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Northbound nevertheless obtained the relief it sought in the application.","causal_attribution":"The law-firm alert's account of the judgment."}],"effects":[{"label":"the applicant's legal practitioners were referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation over fictitious citations","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.itweb.co.za/article/lawyers-face-probe-for-using-hallucinating-genai-in-court/Pero3MZ3221qQb6m","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). ITWeb reports from court documents it saw; the judgment itself was not available to the agent.","independence_group":"northbound-processing-judgment-zagpjhc"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com/en/news/publications/2025/Practice/Employment-Law/combined-employment-and-knowledge-management-alert-4-july-Another-episode-of-fabricated-citations-real-repercussions-South-African-courts-show-no-tolerance-for-AI-hallucinated-cases","kind":"other","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from a 2025 Internet Archive capture (the live page returned HTTP 403). A law-firm client alert analysing the same judgment; same origin as ITWeb.","independence_group":"northbound-processing-judgment-zagpjhc"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The exact date of the judgment and of the referral order.","How many practitioners were referred and the outcome of any Legal Practice Council investigation.","Which citations Legal Genius produced and whether the tool provider responded."],"geography":{"basis":"The heads were filed in, and the referral ordered by, the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (ITWeb, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). Where counsel prepared the heads is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["ZA"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because two accounts of the judgment report that the court referred the applicant's lawyers to the Legal Practice Council after heads of argument cited non-existent cases, and that junior counsel told the court the citations likely came from the AI tool Legal Genius.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"ITWeb, which saw the court documents, reports that on the court's direct inquiry junior counsel acknowledged that the non-existent citations in the heads of argument likely originated from an AI tool and said a tool called Legal Genius had been used under deadline pressure; Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr's analysis of the judgment says counsel acknowledged the use of AI. The tool's output (citations of cases that do not exist) was filed in the heads, and the court referred the practitioners to the Legal Practice Council because fictitious authorities were placed before it. The attribution rests on counsel's acknowledgment as relayed by these two accounts of the judgment; the judgment itself was not read.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Johannesburg High Court refers a company's lawyers to the Legal Practice Council over fictitious citations that junior counsel said likely came from an AI tool","summary":"In an urgent application by Northbound Processing against the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator, Acting Judge DJ Smit of the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, found while preparing judgment that two cases cited in the applicant's heads of argument did not exist. According to ITWeb, which saw the court documents, junior counsel first said a wrong version had been filed, a corrected version was found to contain two further incorrect citations, and on the court's direct inquiry junior counsel acknowledged that the citations likely originated from an AI tool called Legal Genius, used under deadline pressure. The judge accepted the legal team's apologies and found no intent to deceive, but referred the conduct of the applicant's legal practitioners to the Legal Practice Council for investigation (June 2025). The applicant obtained the relief it sought.","incidentDate":"2025-06-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-07-02","aiSystem":"Legal Genius, an AI legal research tool that junior counsel told the court had been used and which, junior counsel said, claimed to be trained solely on South African legal sources","aiProduct":"Legal Genius (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to ITWeb and a law-firm alert on the judgment, the court referred the applicant's legal practitioners to the Legal Practice Council for investigation after heads of argument cited non-existent cases that junior counsel said likely came from the AI tool Legal Genius.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the junior counsel who told the court the tool had been used, among the legal practitioners whose conduct was referred. The order refers the practitioners as a group and the sources read do not state how many were referred, so others are unquantified. The applicant company is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"ZA","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.itweb.co.za/article/lawyers-face-probe-for-using-hallucinating-genai-in-court/Pero3MZ3221qQb6m","primarySourceLabel":"ITWeb, 2 July 2025: Lawyers face probe for using hallucinating GenAI in court","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:33.803607+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:33.803607+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["south-africa","johannesburg","high-court","fictitious-citations","legal-practice-council","legal-research-tool"]},{"id":"2025-colorado-federal-court-fines-mypillow-defence-lawyers-over-brief-with-fabricated-citations-after-ai-admission","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants filed their Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff'; 'the Court identified nearly thirty defective citations in the Opposition'; 'and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The defendants' opposition to the plaintiff's motion in limine, filed on 25 February 2025 and signed by Kachouroff and DeMaster, contained nearly thirty defective citations, including misquotes and citations of cases that do not exist.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court orders, which record the court's own review of the filed brief."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Was this motion generated by generative'; 'Initially, I did an outline for myself, and I'; 'drafted a motion, and then we ran it through AI'; 'I personally did not check it'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Final Pretrial/Trial Preparation Conference held on April 21, 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"At the final pretrial conference on 21 April 2025, asked whether the motion was generated by generative artificial intelligence, Kachouroff said he had drafted it and then ran it through AI, and that he personally did not check the citations.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's statement to the court, quoted from the transcript in the 7 July order; it establishes what counsel said, and the AI's role in the defective citations rests on that statement and the co-counsel declaration."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'believed some of these citations were likely from AI drafts'; 'I do not rely on AI to do legal research or find cases'; 'the use of generative artificial intelligence or gross carelessness by counsel'; 'Nor is this Court persuaded by counsel'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Co-counsel's declaration said Kachouroff had told her he believed some of the citations were likely from AI drafts; counsel also said a wrong draft had been filed by mistake and Kachouroff declared he does not rely on AI to do legal research or find cases. The court was not persuaded by the wrong-draft explanation and found no explanation of how the citations appeared absent generative AI or gross carelessness.","causal_attribution":"The declarations' content and the court's findings are documented by the order; the order does not itself find which tool produced the citations."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Court hereby SANCTIONS Christopher I. Kachouroff and the law firm'; 'The Court hereby SANCTIONS Jennifer T. DeMaster in the amount of'; 'this Court does not extend the sanctions to Defendants'; 'no later than August 4, 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A federal judge ordered two attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in a Colorado defamation case to pay $3,000 each'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 7 July 2025 the court held that Kachouroff and DeMaster violated Rule 11 and sanctioned Kachouroff and his law firm jointly $3,000 and DeMaster $3,000, payable by 4 August 2025, and did not extend the sanctions to Lindell or his companies.","causal_attribution":"Established by the operative part of the 7 July order; NPR relays it."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Kachouroff and DeMaster didn'; 'request for comment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"NPR reported that Kachouroff and DeMaster did not respond to its request for comment.","causal_attribution":"NPR's own report of its request."}],"effects":[{"label":"two defence lawyers were fined $3,000 each for a brief with fabricated citations that lead counsel said had been run through AI","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129-10.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 (HTTP 200). Order of 7 July 2025 (Doc. 383, 20 pages) read in full; the hearing transcript, the declarations and the draft exhibits it cites were not read separately.","independence_group":"coomer-v-lindell-d-colo-sanctions-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129-8.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 (HTTP 200). Order to show cause of 23 April 2025 (Doc. 309) read in full.","independence_group":"coomer-v-lindell-d-colo-sanctions-orders"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.npr.org/2025/07/10/nx-s1-5463512/ai-courts-lawyers-mypillow-fines","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). NPR reports the 7 July order and quotes it; it adds that the lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.","independence_group":"coomer-v-lindell-d-colo-sanctions-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used on the brief and which citations it introduced.","Whether either lawyer has faced bar disciplinary proceedings over the brief; the final order imposes fines only."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in, and the sanctions imposed by, the US District Court for the District of Colorado (both orders). Where the lawyers drafted the brief is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's 7 July 2025 order documents that two defence lawyers were fined $3,000 each for a brief with nearly thirty defective citations, including non-existent cases, and quotes lead counsel's statement in court that the draft was run through AI and not checked.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's 7 July 2025 order quotes lead counsel's answer at the 21 April 2025 conference that after drafting the motion 'we ran it through AI' and that he did not check the citations, and quotes co-counsel's declaration that he believed some of the citations were likely from AI drafts. The filed brief contained citations of cases that do not exist, and the court found counsel gave no explanation of how those citations appeared absent the use of generative artificial intelligence or gross carelessness; it fined both lawyers for the brief. The AI output is thus connected to the sanctioned filing by counsel's own statements in the court record. Counsel later declared that he does not rely on AI to do legal research or find cases, and the court did not identify the tool.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Colorado federal court fines two MyPillow defence lawyers $3,000 each over a brief with fabricated citations; lead counsel had admitted running it through AI","summary":"In the defamation case Coomer v. Lindell in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, a brief that lawyers for Mike Lindell and MyPillow filed on 25 February 2025 contained nearly thirty defective citations, including citations of cases that do not exist. At a conference on 21 April 2025 lead counsel Christopher Kachouroff told Judge Nina Y. Wang that he had drafted the motion and then 'ran it through AI' and had not personally checked the citations. Counsel later said a wrong draft had been filed by mistake; the court was not persuaded. On 7 July 2025 the court found that he and co-counsel Jennifer DeMaster had violated Rule 11 and fined each $3,000 (Kachouroff jointly with his law firm). The court did not sanction Lindell or his companies.","incidentDate":"2025-02-25","incidentEndDate":"2025-07-07","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-04-23","aiSystem":"A generative AI tool that lead counsel said the draft brief was run through; the court record does not identify which tool was used for this brief","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's 7 July 2025 order, two defence lawyers were found to have violated Rule 11 and were each fined $3,000 after filing a brief with nearly thirty defective citations, including non-existent cases, which lead counsel had said was run through AI.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people sanctioned in the 7 July 2025 order: lead counsel, who told the court the draft was run through AI (counted as the AI user), and co-counsel who signed the brief, whose own use of AI is not established (counted as another person harmed). The law firm is an organisation and is not counted; the defendants were not sanctioned.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129-10.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court for the District of Colorado, Coomer v. Lindell, order on the order to show cause (Doc. 383), 7 July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:29.9489+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:29.9489+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["colorado","federal-court","defamation-case","lawyers","fabricated-citations","rule-11-sanction","generative-ai"]},{"id":"2025-ontario-lawyer-chatgpt-factum-invented-cases-contempt-referral-licence-suspension","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On May 1, the applicant’s counsel presented a motion seeking relief in this application. During oral submissions, she delivered a factum and cited cases to support the applicant’s arguments.'; 'The judge asked the lawyer if AI like ChatGPT supported the preparation of the factum. She said she would have to ask her clerk.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'After the hearing, the judge again reviewed the factum and found two more incorrect citations — one to a non-existent case and another to a case that stood for the opposite proposition than that for which it had been cited.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'When Justice Myers confronted her in open court about whether she had used ChatGPT, she categorically denied it, stating, “I did not.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'whether she had used ChatGPT to write her factum'; 'said she had not.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"At a motion hearing on 1 May 2025 in an Ontario Superior Court of Justice estate and family-law application, the applicant’s lawyer relied in writing and orally on a factum citing cases that the judge could not find or that did not support the propositions cited; asked whether AI such as ChatGPT had been used, the lawyer said, according to Canadian Lawyer and LawSites, that she would have to ask her clerk, while Law360 Canada and the tribunal reasons as reported by Law Times say she denied using ChatGPT.","causal_attribution":"Account of the court’s first endorsement (2025 ONSC 2766) as relayed by two legal-press outlets, with the lawyer’s answer in court given differently by Law360 Canada and by the tribunal reasons as reported by Law Times; the endorsement itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'factum may have been created by AI and that before filing the factum and relying on it in court, she might not have checked to make sure the cases were real'; 'the judge ordered the attorney to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'counsel was ordered to return for a show cause hearing to argue why she should not be cited for contempt of court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judge found that the factum appeared to have been created by AI and not checked, and ordered the lawyer to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt of court.","causal_attribution":"The court’s own statement, as quoted by LawSites and summarised by Cassels."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'At an informal scheduling conference on May 16, 2025, counsel was forthright in admitting her error and provided an explanation.'; 'In a written decision released on May 20, 2025, the Court found it unnecessary to continue with contempt proceedings'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'explaining that her staff had used ChatGPT to prepare the factum without her knowledge. She apologized for the mistake and promised to complete at least six hours of continuing professional education in legal ethics and technology.'; 'suffered a public shaming near the end of an unblemished career,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"After telling the court that her staff had used ChatGPT to prepare the factum without her knowledge, apologising and undertaking continuing professional education, the lawyer had the show-cause order withdrawn in a decision released on 20 May 2025, which noted that she had suffered a public shaming near the end of an unblemished career.","causal_attribution":"The court’s second decision (2025 ONSC 2965) as summarised by Cassels and recited in the tribunal reasons reported by Law Times."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'admitting the truth: there was no student.'; 'The new disclosure raises issues of deception of the court in a contempt of court proceeding. The procedural context and the quality of the acts are very different.'; 'the court appointed amicus curiae Dean Embry to ensure'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'revealing that she alone prepared the AI-assisted factum, reversing her prior claim that others were involved. The court treated this as a fresh act of potential contempt and referred the matter to the Attorney General.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"On 30 September 2025 the lawyer wrote to the court that she alone had prepared the factum using ChatGPT and that her earlier account blaming staff was untrue; on 4 December 2025 the court referred the matter to the Attorney General of Ontario for criminal contempt proceedings and appointed an amicus curiae.","causal_attribution":"The court’s third decision (2025 ONSC 6785) as described by Law360 Canada and WeirFoulds; both relay the same decision."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'will have her license to practise law suspended for six months starting July 17. The tribunal'; 'to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario'; 'containing only non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an artificial intelligence tool” and later lying to the court about not using the tool.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 16 July 2026 the Law Society Tribunal suspended the lawyer’s licence for six months from 17 July and ordered her to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario, finding that she relied on a factum containing only non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an AI tool and later lied to the court about not using the tool.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal’s order as reported by Law Times; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the lawyer failed to serve her client in a family law matter by using ChatGPT to prepare a factum containing AI-hallucinated case citations and arguments.'; 'Later, she admitted that she had prepared the factum herself and did not know hallucinations existed until Myers confronted her about her submissions.'; 'we are extremely troubled by the lawyer’s subsequent repeated lies to the court and to the law society'; 'had little to no prior experience with ChatGPT'; 'That case remains ongoing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The tribunal’s reasons, as reported, say the lawyer failed to serve her client by using ChatGPT to prepare a factum containing hallucinated citations and arguments, that she had prepared the factum herself with little or no prior experience of ChatGPT, that her repeated lies to the court and the Law Society troubled the tribunal more than the reliance, and that the criminal contempt case remained ongoing.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal’s reasons as reported by Law Times; the reasons themselves were not read."}],"effects":[{"label":"show-cause order for contempt, referral for criminal contempt and a six-month licence suspension after relying on ChatGPT-generated nonexistent case law","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/family/superior-court-says-family-law-case-factum-may-have-fake-legal-citations-due-to-ai-hallucinations/392433","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Canadian Lawyer, 13 May 2025, reporting the first endorsement (2025 ONSC 2766); HTTP 200. The endorsement itself (CanLII) returned 403 live and from the Internet Archive.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/2025/05/ai-hallucinations-strike-again-two-more-cases-where-lawyers-face-judicial-wrath-for-fake-citations.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. LawSites (LawNext), 14 May 2025, summarising the same endorsement; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://cassels.com/insights/fantasies-in-the-footnotes-ontario-court-rebukes-counsel-for-fake-and-misleading-ai-generated-case-citations/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Cassels law-firm commentary, 23 May 2025, summarising 2025 ONSC 2766 and 2025 ONSC 2965; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/2419185","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Law360 Canada analysis, 8 Dec 2025, describing 2025 ONSC 6785 and quoting it; HTTP 200 (full text served).","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.weirfoulds.com/pdf-article?id=36828","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. WeirFoulds law-firm article PDF, 23 Dec 2025, on 2025 ONSC 6785; HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/law-society-tribunal-temporarily-suspends-lawyers-license-after-finding-she-lied-about-chatgpt-use/393450","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Law Times, 16 Jul 2026, on the Law Society Tribunal order; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"law-society-tribunal-order-and-reasons-2026"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/out-of-character-tribunal-explains-six-month-suspension-of-lawyer-who-lied-about-chatgpt-use/393453","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Law Times, 21 Jul 2026, on the tribunal reasons; HTTP 200. The tribunal order and reasons themselves were not read.","independence_group":"law-society-tribunal-order-and-reasons-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The outcome of the criminal contempt proceeding referred to the Attorney General; the latest source read (21 July 2026) says it remained ongoing.","Whether the client suffered any concrete consequence in the estate application; the tribunal found the lawyer failed to serve her client but no source read describes an effect on the case.","Which ChatGPT version was used and what prompts produced the citations.","The court endorsements and the tribunal order and reasons were not read directly (CanLII returned 403); all claims rest on legal-press and law-firm accounts of them."],"geography":{"basis":"The factum was filed and argued at a hearing of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the lawyer is described as a Toronto lawyer licensed by the Law Society of Ontario, whose tribunal suspended her.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":["CA"]},"publication":{"basis":"Legal-press and law-firm accounts of three Ontario Superior Court decisions and a Law Society Tribunal order describe a lawyer who relied on ChatGPT-generated nonexistent case law in a factum, was ordered to show cause for contempt, later admitted she alone had used ChatGPT and had misled the court, was referred for criminal contempt and was suspended for six months.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawyer told the court in September 2025 that she alone prepared the factum using ChatGPT, and the Law Society Tribunal, as reported by Law Times, found that she relied on a factum containing only non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an AI tool and that she used ChatGPT to prepare it. ChatGPT’s output (citations to cases that do not exist or do not support the propositions) reached the lawyer, who filed it and relied on it orally at the 1 May 2025 hearing; the court’s contempt proceedings and the tribunal’s suspension followed from that reliance and from her later false account of it. The tribunal’s main concern was her dishonesty, which is a separate act by the lawyer.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Ontario: lawyer who relied on ChatGPT-invented case law in a factum was referred for criminal contempt and suspended for six months, legal press reports","summary":"An Ontario lawyer relied, at a 1 May 2025 Superior Court hearing in an estate and family-law matter, on a factum citing cases that do not exist or do not support the propositions cited. The judge ordered her to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt, then withdrew the order on 20 May 2025 after she said her staff had used ChatGPT without her knowledge. On 30 September 2025 she told the court that she alone had prepared the factum with ChatGPT and that her earlier account was untrue; the court referred the matter to Ontario’s Attorney General for criminal contempt proceedings in December 2025. In July 2026 the Law Society Tribunal suspended her licence for six months, finding she relied on AI-generated non-existent case law and lied about it. The account comes from legal-press and law-firm reports of the decisions; the criminal contempt case was still ongoing at the last report read.","incidentDate":"2025-05-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-05-13","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which the lawyer admitted using to prepare the factum and which the Law Society Tribunal found generated the non-existent or irrelevant case law","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to legal-press reports of the court and tribunal decisions, the lawyer faced a contempt show-cause order and a referral for criminal contempt, and the Law Society Tribunal suspended her licence for six months and ordered her to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario; the court noted she had suffered a public shaming near the end of an unblemished career.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the lawyer who used ChatGPT, is reported to have suffered the contempt proceedings and the suspension. The tribunal found she failed to serve her client, but no source read describes a concrete consequence for the client, who is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/out-of-character-tribunal-explains-six-month-suspension-of-lawyer-who-lied-about-chatgpt-use/393453","primarySourceLabel":"Law Times, 21 Jul 2026: tribunal explains six-month suspension of lawyer who lied about ChatGPT use","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:48.661937+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:48.661937+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","lawyer_sanction","contempt_of_court","professional_discipline","canada","ontario"]},{"id":"2026-taichung-renovation-contractor-suspected-ai-progress-photos-homeowners","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'透過臉書粉絲團找上標榜老屋翻修的裝修業者'; '工程原訂去年8月20日開工、預計今年3月底完工。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'雙方約定去年8月20日開工，預計今年3月底完工。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A homeowner in Taichung's East District hired a renovation business found through a Facebook fan page; work was due to start on 20 August 2025 and finish by the end of March 2026.","causal_attribution":"Homeowner's account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'H小姐一路配合付款達255萬3275元。'; '一樓也堆滿營建廢棄物'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'截至今年3月底，H小姐已陸續給付255萬3,275元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'屋主到現場查看時更不敢相信，房子竟變成建築廢棄物堆置場。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"By the end of March 2026 she had paid NT$2,553,275 while the contractor sent progress photos and payment slips and repeatedly delayed; the house was left gutted with construction waste on the ground floor.","causal_attribution":"Homeowner's account and the reporters' observation of the house (ETtoday photographed the site)."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'她將施工照片丟進AI圖片識別網頁檢測，發現幾乎都是99.9%的AI合成成分。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'屋主用AI檢測的軟體檢查照片，發現連工人都是AI畫上去'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'甚至傳送多張幾可亂真的「AI合成施工照」回報進度。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"She says the progress photos were AI-generated: an AI-image detection website rated them about 99.9% AI, and they showed workers and fittings that did not match the house.","causal_attribution":"Homeowner's detector result and comparison; outlets describe the images as suspected AI composites; no forensic finding by police reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'另一名屋主C小姐同樣受害，她轉帳188萬元，又面交28萬多元，總計付出200多萬元。'; '雖然業者沒有傳AI圖給她，但她後來查看粉絲專頁，發現上面的照片都是AI合成。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'還發現目前受害已經有三人。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A second homeowner in Dali District paid more than NT$2 million to the same contractor; she did not receive AI images but says the business's fan page photos were AI-generated. CTS reports three victims so far.","causal_attribution":"Second homeowner's account (TVBS); victim count from CTS."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'詢問是否用AI圖回報假進度，對方否認。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'不過詢問裝修業者，對方否認詐騙，進一步詢問細節卻不願多說。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A designer at the business denied using AI images to report false progress.","causal_attribution":"Contractor's response as reported."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'她已報案提告詐欺，累計匯款金額達255萬多元。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'目前全案已由檢警偵查，並嘗試併案擴大偵辦。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"She has reported the case to police and filed a fraud complaint; ETtoday reports prosecutors and police are investigating and trying to combine related complaints.","causal_attribution":"Homeowner's statement and ETtoday's report of the investigation."}],"effects":[{"label":"paid about NT$2.55 million on the strength of allegedly AI-generated progress photos while the house was left gutted","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://house.ettoday.net/news/3245899","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read live in Traditional Chinese on 2026-10-01 (ETtoday 房產雲, reporter's own visit and interviews, 29 September 2026). Researcher translation.","independence_group":"ettoday-taichung-renovation"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.tvbs.com.tw/local/4029203","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read live in Traditional Chinese on 2026-10-01 (TVBS, 29 September 2026; includes a call to the contractor). Researcher translation.","independence_group":"tvbs-taichung-renovation"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://news.cts.com.tw/cts/general/202609/202609293084245.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read live in Traditional Chinese on 2026-10-01 (CTS, 29 September 2026; includes the contractor's refusal). Researcher translation.","independence_group":"cts-taichung-renovation"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://fuhouse.setn.com/news/1914625","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read live in Traditional Chinese on 2026-10-01 (SETN 富房網, 29 September 2026; images credited to the Housing Consumer Protection Association). Researcher translation.","independence_group":"housing-consumer-association-release"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Whether the progress photos were in fact AI-generated; the evidence reported is an online detector result and visual comparison, and the contractor denies it.","Which tool made the images.","Whether the third victim reported by CTS received AI images.","The outcome of the police and prosecutors' investigation."],"geography":{"basis":"Both houses are in Taichung (East District and Dali District), Taiwan, and the contractor operates in the Taichung-Changhua-Nantou area (ETtoday; TVBS). No court ruling is reported.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["TW"],"affected_person_countries":["TW"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an adverse consumer experience in which allegedly AI-generated progress photos were used to keep a homeowner paying for unperformed work. The account is the homeowners' and the Housing Consumer Protection Association's, reported by ETtoday, TVBS, CTS and SETN; AI involvement is suspected and denied by the contractor. Homeowners appear only by initials in the sources and are not identified here; the contractor and designer are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-01"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The homeowner says an AI-image detection website rated the contractor's progress photos about 99.9% AI-generated, and she and the Housing Consumer Protection Association point to workers and fittings that do not match the house (TVBS; CTS; ETtoday). The outlets describe the photos as suspected AI composites, and a designer at the business denied using AI images (TVBS). No forensic analysis by police is reported. The images were sent by the contractor; they depict the property, not the homeowner, and no source shows an AI system communicating with her, so the relation is recorded as unknown.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Taichung, Taiwan: a homeowner who paid a renovation contractor about NT$2.55 million says the construction-progress photos it sent were AI-generated while the house was left full of debris; she has filed a fraud complaint with police, a second homeowner describes similar losses, and the contractor denies using AI images","summary":"A homeowner in Taichung's East District hired a renovation business she found through a Facebook fan page to renovate her four-storey house, with work due to start on 20 August 2025 and finish by the end of March 2026 (ETtoday). By the end of March 2026 she had paid NT$2,553,275 while the contractor cited repeated reasons for delay and sent progress photos and payment slips for materials. She became suspicious when an air-conditioning supplier named on one of the contractor's payment slips said it had not received the payment, compared the photos with the site, and ran them through an AI-image detection website, which rated them almost entirely (99.9%) AI-generated; the photos showed workers and fittings that did not exist, and the house was left gutted with construction waste piled on the ground floor (TVBS; CTS; ETtoday). She has reported it to police and, with a lawyer, filed a fraud complaint. A second homeowner in Dali District paid more than NT$2 million to the same contractor, did not receive AI images, and says the business's fan page used AI-generated pictures; CTS reports three victims so far. A designer at the business denied to TVBS that it used AI images to report false progress, and ETtoday reports prosecutors and police are investigating.","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-04-30","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-29","aiSystem":"Construction-progress photos and Facebook advertising images that the homeowner and a housing consumer group say were AI-generated (an online AI-image detector rated the progress photos 99.9% AI); the contractor denies it; no tool identified","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool (suspected)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","property_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A homeowner says she paid about NT$2.55 million to a renovation contractor that kept her paying with what she and a consumer group say were AI-generated progress photos, while her house was left gutted and full of debris; a second homeowner lost more than NT$2 million to the same business (ETtoday; TVBS; CTS). The contractor denies using AI images.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"CTS reports three victims so far who plan a joint complaint ('目前已經累積三名受害者'); two are described with their payments, the East District homeowner (NT$2,553,275) and the Dali District homeowner (more than NT$2 million) (ETtoday; TVBS). Documented minimum 3.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"TW","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://house.ettoday.net/news/3245899","primarySourceLabel":"ETtoday房產雲, 29 September 2026: AI淪裝修詐騙新工具！　台中女噴255萬「透天厝打爛變廢墟」","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-01T03:17:57.172561+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-01T03:17:57.172561+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-generated-images","renovation-fraud","consumer-fraud","facebook","taiwan","taichung","police-report"]},{"id":"2026-cileungsi-bogor-students-ai-deepfake-pornography","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Ratusan pelajar di Cileungsi, Kabupaten Bogor, diedit pakai AI dan dijadikan konten pornografi. Kasus itu kini diselidiki kepolisian.'; 'Sejauh ini yang di kami baru lapor tiga orang, tapi satu laporan, kita masih dalami kasus tersebut termasuk si pembuat kontennya siapa'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Polres Bogor is investigating a report that pupils in Cileungsi had their faces edited with AI into pornographic content; three pupils have reported in one police report, and police are still identifying the maker and the program used.","causal_attribution":"Police statement; the police attribute nothing yet to a named person."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'ratusan pelajar sekolah swasta di Cileungsi Bogor menjadi korban deepfake AI dimana wajah mereka dimanipulasi dan diubah menjadi konten tidak senonoh'; 'pelaku mencuri foto korban dari akun media sosial masing-masing pelajar'; 'ada beberapa website yang sudah pernah diunggah seperti website judol dan lain-lain'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'kasus bermula setelah korban mendapat informasi dari temannya bahwa ada seseorang yang diduga membuat konten menggunakan wajahnya melalui teknologi AI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the witnesses' lawyer, hundreds of pupils of a private school in Cileungsi had photographs taken from their social-media accounts manipulated into nude photographs and pornographic videos, some uploaded to websites including an online-gambling site.","causal_attribution":"Lawyer's account of the scale; police confirm only the three complainants and the AI-edited content."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Kepolisian sudah mengantongi dua nama yang dilaporkan sebagai pelaku'; 'sebagai inisiator dan pembuat konten'; 'pelaku mengakui saat ditanya'; 'menemukan adanya ribuan foto serta video yang diduga hasil manipulasi AI di smartphone milik terduga pelaku'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Two former pupils have been reported as suspects, in the roles of initiator and content maker, and are said by the lawyer to have admitted the acts to witnesses; police reportedly found thousands of suspected AI-manipulated photos and videos on a suspect's phone.","causal_attribution":"Allegations relayed by the victims' lawyer; no charge announced."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Meski baru dilaporkan pada 19 Mei 2026, kasus ini diduga sudah berlangsung semenjak 2025 lalu, bahkan saat semua pihak (termasuk pelaku) masih berstatus pelajar'; 'terduga pelaku disebut telah lulus dari sekolah, beberapa korban masih berstatus pelajar dan beberapa lainnya sudah berstatus mahasiswa'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The case was reported to police on 19 May 2026 and is believed to have run since 2025 while all involved were pupils; the suspects have since graduated and some victims are now university students.","causal_attribution":"Timeline as reported by Uzone/Pojok Bogor."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Kita tidak bisa berasumsi saja, harus jelas, apalagi ini terkait Undang-Undang ITE, harus tahu benar dia yang membuat atau tidak, harus ada buktinya yang jelas'; 'penanganan perkara masih berada pada tahap awal'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Police say the investigation is at an early stage, that they must establish with clear evidence who made the content under the ITE Law, and that tracing the AI program used is a challenge.","causal_attribution":"Police statement."}],"effects":[{"label":"pupils' social-media photographs were turned into AI pornographic images and videos, some uploaded to public websites; three have filed a police report and the victims' lawyer says hundreds were affected","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://kumparan.com/kumparannews/ratusan-pelajar-di-bogor-jadi-korban-pornografi-deepfake-ai-polisi-selidiki-28CxcCG6rv6","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"id","translation_note":"Read in Indonesian on 2026-09-19 (Kumparan, 18 September 2026; quotes the Polres Bogor unit head by phone). Quotations translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"polres-bogor-statement"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://uzone.id/ratusan-pelajar-cileungsi-jadi-korban-deepfake-ai-foto-jadi-porno","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"id","translation_note":"Read in Indonesian on 2026-09-19 (Uzone, relaying Pojok Bogor of 17 September 2026 and the witnesses' lawyer). The Pojok Bogor original was not fetched; grouped as one lawyer-account chain.","independence_group":"pojok-bogor-lawyer-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["education","privacy"],"unknowns":["The number of victims is disputed in scale: police count three complainants, the lawyer says hundreds.","The AI tools used are not identified.","No arrest, charge or court proceeding is reported; the suspects' admissions are relayed by the lawyer, not confirmed by police.","The school is not named in the inspected reports and is not recorded here.","The Pojok Bogor original article (16-17 September 2026) was not directly read; its account is taken from Uzone's relay."],"geography":{"basis":"Private school in Cileungsi, Bogor Regency, West Java; Polres Bogor investigating (Kumparan, Uzone). No court proceeding yet.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["ID"],"affected_person_countries":["ID"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an image-based-abuse series against school pupils with a police-confirmed report and a lawyer-described scale, read in Indonesian from two chains (police via Kumparan; the victims' lawyer via Uzone/Pojok Bogor). Claims recorded as reported; the scale is attributed. Minors: no names, no school name, suspects' initials omitted; no imagery described beyond 'nude photographs and pornographic videos'.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Police describe the content as made with AI technology and say they are still tracing the program used; the victims' lawyer describes AI-manipulated nude photos and pornographic videos, and thousands of suspected AI-manipulated files found on a suspect's phone. No tool is named and no forensic finding has been published.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Cileungsi, Bogor Regency, Indonesia: photographs of private-school pupils taken from social media were turned into AI pornographic images and videos, reportedly since 2025; three pupils have filed a joint police report, the victims' lawyer says hundreds were affected, and two former pupils are named as suspects","summary":"Bogor Regency police confirmed on 18 September 2026 that they are investigating a report that pupils of a private school in Cileungsi had their faces edited with artificial intelligence into pornographic content. The head of the women-and-children unit told Kumparan that so far three pupils had reported in a single police report, that the case began when a victim heard from a friend that someone was making content with their face using AI technology, and that investigators were still establishing who made the content and which program was used, under the Electronic Information and Transactions Law. A lawyer for the witnesses, quoted by Pojok Bogor and Uzone, says the victims number in the hundreds; that two former pupils, one as initiator and one as maker, have been reported and admitted the acts to witnesses; that police found thousands of suspected AI-manipulated photos and videos on a suspect's phone, some uploaded to websites including an online-gambling site; and that the case, reported on 19 May 2026, is believed to have run since 2025 while all involved were still pupils, some victims now being university students. Police say the case is at an early stage and asked the public not to draw conclusions.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-05-19","aiSystem":"AI image- and video-manipulation tools (not identified; police say the program used is still being traced)","aiProduct":"Unidentified image and video tool","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse","psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Pupils of a Cileungsi private school had their social-media photographs turned into AI pornographic images and videos, some reportedly uploaded to public websites; three have filed a police report and the victims' lawyer says hundreds were affected and asks for a swift process so they can focus on their studies. Attribution to the reported suspects rests on the lawyer's account of their admissions and on police examination of a phone; police have not announced charges.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Police: three pupils have reported in one police report (Kumparan, 18 Sep 2026). The victims' lawyer says the victims number in the hundreds (Uzone/Pojok Bogor). Three counted people plus additional unquantified victims: partial. 'Thousands of photos and videos' is a content count, not a person count.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"ID","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://kumparan.com/kumparannews/ratusan-pelajar-di-bogor-jadi-korban-pornografi-deepfake-ai-polisi-selidiki-28CxcCG6rv6","primarySourceLabel":"Kumparan, 18 September 2026: Ratusan Pelajar di Bogor Jadi Korban Pornografi Deepfake AI, Polisi Selidiki (Polres Bogor women-and-children unit statement)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-19T03:17:35.203873+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:32.43216+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfake","ncii","minors","school","indonesia","bogor","cileungsi","police-investigation","image-based-abuse"]}]}