{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-14T14:07:39.503Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"lawyers","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":3,"mixedRelations":0,"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":"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"]},{"id":"2025-negrar-italy-google-ai-overview-reported-false-death-notice-orthopedics-chief","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Interrogando il motore di ricerca il sistema ha infatti generato l’output secondo cui Zorzi sarebbe deceduto.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"tramite la funzionalità dell’intelligenza artificiale di Google denominata “AI Overwiew”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Il professor Zorzi sta bene, continua a dirigere il reparto di Ortopedia","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Interrogando il motore di ricerca il sistema ha generato l'output sbagliato.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Un luminare del ginocchio che però secondo l’intelligenza artificiale è passato a miglior vita.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The hospital states that, when the search engine was queried, Google's AI Overview feature generated an output saying that surgeon Claudio Zorzi had died, and that Zorzi is alive and still directs the department and operates.","causal_attribution":"The sources report the connection between the AI output and the reported consequence; no court, regulator or independent finding of causation was inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"scambiato per l’omonimo medico di famiglia","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"verosimilmente originato da un caso di omonimia","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"effettivamente deceduto era un medico di medicina generale","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The hospital and the press attribute the error to confusion with a homonymous general practitioner who died; Il Mattino states that a general practitioner of the same name did die.","causal_attribution":"The hospital says the error was 'verosimilmente' (probably) caused by a homonym. No source shows how the AI system produced the output."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"La notizia si era diffusa ad aprile scorso","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"risale allo scorso aprile","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"puntualmente viene riproposta in rete. È successo lo scorso settembre, succede anche adesso.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Il Mattino and Adnkronos report that the false news of the surgeon's death first spread in April (2025, by their October 2025 publication dates) and, according to Il Mattino, kept reappearing online despite a denial, including in September.","causal_attribution":"Adnkronos ties the April false news to Google's AI Overview in its own text. The hospital note relayed by Sanità Informazione says only that the false news spread 'di recente', and Il Mattino dates the 'death' to April without saying which service showed it. No source dates an AI Overview output."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Se la gente pensa che io sia morto, non mi cerca.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"si era pure rivolto alla Polizia postale per far togliere l’annuncio che lo dava per morto","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"manifestamente erronea e gravemente lesiva dell’immagine e della reputazione dell’ospedale e del suo primario Claudio Zorzi","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Il Mattino quotes Zorzi as saying he is alive and uncomfortable because people who think he is dead do not look for him, and reports that he turned to the postal police to have the notice removed. The hospital describes the false content as seriously damaging to its image and to the reputation of the department head.","causal_attribution":"The statements are attributed to Zorzi and the hospital by Il Mattino, and the place and date of the quotes are not stated. No loss of patients is reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ha dunque notificato, attraverso i suoi legali, un atto di diffida e messa in mora formale nei confronti di Google","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"L’ospedale si riserva inoltre ogni possibilità di agire in separata sede per ottenere risarcimento","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"a provvedere all’immediata e definitiva rettifica e cancellazione della falsa notizia del decesso del professor Zorzi da ogni servizio Google","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"formalmente intimato e diffidato Google a provvedere all'immediata e definitiva rettifica e cancellazione","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On or before 15 October 2025 the hospital, through its lawyers, served Google with a formal cease-and-desist and default notice demanding correction and deletion of the false death notice from all Google services including AI Overview, search results and cached pages, and reserved court action and a damages claim.","causal_attribution":"The hospital's own announcement of its own action, relayed by three outlets that share one chain; the notice itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"in provincia di Verona","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"IRCCS Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria di Negrar (Verona)","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The hospital is located in Negrar, in the province of Verona.","causal_attribution":"Location statement only."}],"effects":[{"label":"Named surgeon reported as dead by a search-engine AI summary while alive and practising","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Reported reputational harm and discomfort that people who think the surgeon is dead do not look for him","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.sanitainformazione.it/lirccs-di-negrar-diffida-google-per-la-falsa-notizia-sulla-morte-del-primario-claudio-zorzi/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Italian original read directly by the reviewer (machine-assisted reading, no human translator).","independence_group":"irccs-negrar-note"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ilmattino.it/primopiano/cronaca/claudio_zorzi_morto_ortopedia_falso_ospedale_diffida_google-9130583.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Italian original read directly (machine-assisted reading, no human translator). The page is marked for premium subscribers; its saved text runs to the closing copyright line.","independence_group":"il-mattino-own-reporting-and-irccs-note"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://comunicazioneitaliana.it/news/53df45ea0d4a52772c315ac4521d4da6","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Adnkronos wire text republished by a communications site. Italian original read directly (machine-assisted reading, no human translator).","independence_group":"irccs-negrar-note"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.salutextutti.it/fake-news-sulla-morte-del-primario-di-ortopedia-allirccs-di-negrar-scatta-la-diffida-a-google/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Italian original read directly (machine-assisted reading, no human translator). This rewrite adds statements that conflict with the other sources on dates and is used only for the location of the hospital.","independence_group":"irccs-negrar-note"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["health","work"],"unknowns":["The AI Overview output was not inspected and no screenshot is described in the sources. No source dates an AI Overview output: the sources date the false news to April (year not printed, read as 2025 from the October 2025 article dates), and Adnkronos alone ties the April news to AI Overview.","Whether the hospital's April-to-October timeline concerns the AI Overview or other web pages is not settled. Salutextutti says the news 'emerged on 15 October 2025' and 'in April 2025', which is inconsistent, so that outlet is used only for the hospital location.","No Google response, correction or removal is reported in the inspected sources.","Il Mattino says the hospital explained 'un mese fa' (about a month before 16 October 2025) that its surgeon was in good health, and that the hospital also published a post saying he was not dead. The date of the post is not stated.","Where and when Zorzi's quoted statements were made is not stated. The Il Mattino quote about patients may come from an earlier interview.","No loss of patients, income or other concrete consequence beyond the reported reputational damage and the police report is described.","Il Mattino is marked for premium subscribers. The saved text runs to the closing '© RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA' line with no mid-word break and is treated as the whole article, although a paywall could hide text the page did not show."],"geography":{"basis":"Sanità Informazione and Salutextutti place the surgeon's hospital in Negrar, in the province of Verona. Where searchers entered the queries is not stated, so no event country is recorded and no country is inferred from the language or the outlets.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["IT"]},"publication":{"basis":"Four Italian reports read (Il Mattino is marked for premium subscribers; its saved text is complete to the closing copyright line). Three (Sanità Informazione, Adnkronos, Salutextutti) relay the hospital's note of 15 October 2025 and are one reporting chain. Il Mattino adds its own reporting with quotes from the surgeon and background on the homonym. The surgeon is named because his hospital named him in its own public note and post and because Il Mattino quotes him by name (for example: 'Sono vivo, sano e vegeto, perfettamente efficiente'). The AI Overview output was not inspected, so the account is reported, and the date is the month in which the press says the false news spread.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The hospital's note, relayed by Sanità Informazione, Adnkronos and others, says the system generated the output that the surgeon had died. Il Mattino writes that 'according to the artificial intelligence' the surgeon had died. The AI Overview output was not inspected.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Google AI Overview reportedly states that an orthopedic surgeon in Negrar is dead after a homonym's death","summary":"Italian outlets report that Google's AI Overview feature told searchers that Claudio Zorzi, head of orthopedics and traumatology at the IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria hospital in Negrar (Verona), had died. According to the hospital, the surgeon is alive and operating, and the error probably came from confusion with a general practitioner of the same name who died. The false news is reported to have circulated since April 2025 and to have recurred. Zorzi said he felt uncomfortable because people who think he is dead do not look for him, and he reported the notice to the postal police. On 15 October 2025 the hospital served Google, through its lawyers, with a formal cease-and-desist and default notice and reserved a damages claim. No Google response was found. The AI Overview output itself was not inspected.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-10-15","aiSystem":"AI Overviews (Google Search)","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The hospital describes the false death notice as seriously damaging to the image and reputation of the hospital and its department head. Zorzi says he is uncomfortable because people who think he is dead do not look for him, and he asked the postal police to have the notice removed (his statements as quoted by Il Mattino). No loss of patients or income is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the surgeon named as dead. The hospital is an organisation and is not counted. The doctor who actually died and that doctor's family are not reported as harmed by the AI output and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.sanitainformazione.it/lirccs-di-negrar-diffida-google-per-la-falsa-notizia-sulla-morte-del-primario-claudio-zorzi/","primarySourceLabel":"Sanità Informazione: L'IRCCS di Negrar diffida Google per la falsa notizia sulla morte del primario Claudio Zorzi","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T14:02:31.994209+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:11.195309+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-lacey-insurance-discovery-relief-denied-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 8 para 20: 'I have struck, and decline to'; 'consider, any of the supplemental briefs'; 'I decline to award any of the discovery relief'; p. 7 para 17: 'The initial, undisclosed use of AI products to'; 'generate the first draft of the brief was flat-out wrong.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought because her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research.","causal_attribution":"The order itself connects the struck briefs and denial of relief to counsel's undisclosed AI use, failure to cite-check and re-submission of the defective brief (paras 17-20)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 2 para 5: 'approximately nine of the 27 legal'; 'citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect in some way. At least two of the'; 'authorities cited do not exist at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order records that about nine of the 27 citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect and that at least two cited authorities do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The special master's own after-the-fact review, as recorded in the order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 10 para 24: 'clearly not at fault for the AI debacle'; 'She will not, however, be financially'; para 25: 'I decline to order any sanction'; conclusion: 'aggregate amount of $31,100.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order makes the two firms jointly and severally pay $31,100 in aggregate, states the client was not at fault and will not be financially responsible for the awards, and declines any sanction against individual lawyers.","causal_attribution":"Allocation of financial responsibility is directly recorded in the order."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, declaration p. 46 para 3: 'generative AI capabilities found in CoCounsel and Westlaw Precision and'; p. 47 para 4: 'It is unclear to me whether'; 'research tools I utilized returned some erroneous information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied in part on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he cannot tell whether particular errors arose from his transcription or from a tool.","causal_attribution":"The declarant's own statement; the order does not determine which tool produced each error."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, joint response section II p. 76: 'None of the K&L Gates attorneys who worked on the subject brief used any'; order p. 3 para 7: 'the attorneys at K&L Gates didn’t'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The second firm states that none of its lawyers who worked on the brief used or had access to AI tools or knew that AI had been used until the special master's inquiries.","causal_attribution":"The firm's own submission; the order records that the special master had no reason to doubt the sworn statements."}],"effects":[{"label":"Loss of requested discovery relief after the claimant's briefs were struck","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; read on 2026-10-09 from the retained PDF text of the 77-page filing: order pp. 2-10, appendix inventory p. 11, originating lawyer's declaration pp. 46-47 and the firms' joint response section II p. 76. PDF page 1 yielded no text. Not every appended exhibit was read.","independence_group":"lacey-ecf119"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which tool, if any, produced each erroneous citation or quotation; the declarant says he cannot distinguish his transcription errors from tool output.","Whether the requested discovery relief would have been granted had the briefs been accurate.","The later course of the insurance action and where the AI-assisted drafting took place.","Paragraph 1 of the order (PDF page 1) was not inspected because the page yielded no extractable text."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was issued by a special master in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The record does not state where the AI-assisted drafting took place or where the claimant lives, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"A filed court order directly establishes that the claimant's briefs were struck and her discovery relief denied because of AI-generated false citations in her lawyers' filings, with the monetary award placed on the firms. The tool identities are attributed to the declarant and kept as reported.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The filed order records that a lawyer used AI tools to generate the research outline for the claimant's brief and that the resulting brief contained false citations and quotations (about nine of 27 wrong, at least two non-existent). The special master read those authorities, found they did not exist, and on that basis struck the briefs and denied the discovery relief, writing that the use of AI affirmatively misled him. The declarant names CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini but cannot say which tool produced each error, so the per-tool contribution is unestablished.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Insurance claimant loses discovery relief after her lawyers file AI-generated false citations; special master's order sanctions the two firms $31,100","summary":"In an order dated 5 May 2025 and filed on 6 May in Lacey v. State Farm (C.D. Cal.), a special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research: about nine of 27 citations were wrong and at least two cited authorities did not exist. One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he could not tell whether particular errors came from his transcription or from a tool; co-counsel at the second firm say they used no AI tools and did not know AI had been used. The order makes the two firms jointly pay $31,100, states the client was not at fault and will not bear the awards, and imposes no penalty on individual lawyers.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-05","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-06","aiSystem":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, named in one lawyer's sworn declaration as the generative AI tools used for the research outline; the order itself refers to 'various AI tools' and does not establish which tool produced each error","aiProduct":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Gemini (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated citations; the $31,100 award falls on the firms, not on her.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One claimant whose briefs were struck and whose discovery relief was denied (order paras 20 and 24). She did not use the AI tools herself, so participant users is 0. The lawyers and firms bear the monetary award but are not counted as harmed persons.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Co., C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-05205, ECF 119: special master's sanctions order dated 5 May 2025, filed 6 May 2025 (with appendix)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:29:01.113121+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:12:38.363121+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025","ai-citations","court-sanction","legal-research","consequential-response"]}]}