{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-14T15:01:22.554Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"lawyers","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":7,"coverage":{"cases":7,"countries":3,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":7,"minors":0,"coreRelations":4,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":2,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":2},"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-derbyshire-police-senior-detective-gross-misconduct-investigation-over-ai-use","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Derbyshire Constabulary made a voluntary conduct referral to us on 23 June following an internal review of an officer's use of artificial intelligence and concerns it was not in line with guidance and conditions issued by the force.'; 'The organisation added it had decided the matter warranted an investigation.'; 'The officer in question has been served notice that they are under investigation for alleged gross misconduct.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The IOPC said Derbyshire Constabulary made a voluntary conduct referral on 23 June following an internal review of an officer's use of artificial intelligence and concerns it was not in line with force guidance, decided the matter warranted an investigation, and served the officer notice of an investigation for alleged gross misconduct.","causal_attribution":"The watchdog's own statement as quoted by the BBC."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the case involved a detective chief inspector at the force alleged to have used AI to maintain'; 'they can be disclosed for defence lawyers to scrutinise during court cases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A person familiar with events told the Financial Times that the case involved a detective chief inspector alleged to have used AI to maintain decision logs, which can be disclosed to defence lawyers during court cases.","causal_attribution":"An unnamed person's account to the FT, relayed by the BBC."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In June, the force started an unrelated criminal investigation into another detective'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The BBC describes the case as unrelated to the June criminal investigation into another Derbyshire officer accused of using AI systems to create evidential material.","causal_attribution":"The outlet's description; it separates the two events."}],"effects":[{"label":"officer served notice of a gross misconduct investigation over AI use","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7vgq5mgz2mo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200; datePublished 2026-08-10). Quotes the IOPC and Derbyshire Police directly and relays the Financial Times for the decision-log detail.","independence_group":"iopc-and-force-statements"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI system was used, and what it produced","Whether any decision-log entry was inaccurate or any case was affected","The outcome of the IOPC investigation"],"geography":{"basis":"Event: an internal review and conduct referral by Derbyshire Constabulary, an English force, and an IOPC investigation. Affected person: a serving Derbyshire officer. No court is involved.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a reported consequential-response case on the IOPC's own statement: Derbyshire Constabulary referred an officer after an internal review of the officer's AI use and concerns that it breached force guidance, and the officer was served notice of a gross misconduct investigation. The decision-log detail comes from an unnamed person via the FT and is attributed. The officer is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is an institutional response to the officer's own use of AI: the IOPC says the force referred the officer after an internal review of the officer's use of artificial intelligence and concerns that it breached force guidance, and the watchdog opened a gross misconduct investigation. The FT, as relayed by the BBC, reports that the AI was allegedly used to maintain investigative decision logs. No AI output reaching a decision about a person is described, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Derbyshire Police refer a senior detective to the police watchdog, which opens a gross misconduct investigation into the officer's use of AI","summary":"The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said, as reported by the BBC on 10 August 2026, that Derbyshire Constabulary had made a voluntary conduct referral on 23 June 2026, following an internal review of an officer's use of artificial intelligence and concerns that it was not in line with guidance and conditions issued by the force. The IOPC decided the matter warranted an investigation, and the officer was served notice of an investigation for alleged gross misconduct. The BBC, citing the Financial Times, reported that a person familiar with events said the officer is a detective chief inspector alleged to have used AI to maintain decision logs, which investigators keep to record their reasoning and which can be disclosed to defence lawyers. The BBC describes the case as unrelated to the criminal investigation opened in June into another Derbyshire officer. The AI system and the outcome are not reported.","incidentDate":"2026-06-23","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-10","aiSystem":"AI used by a senior detective, reportedly to maintain investigative decision logs, contrary to force guidance according to the IOPC (system not identified)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI system","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A senior detective was referred to the police watchdog after an internal review of the officer's AI use, and was served notice of an investigation for alleged gross misconduct.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the officer whose use of AI the force reviewed and who was served notice of the gross misconduct investigation (claim c1). The IOPC describes the officer's AI use as a fact under review, so the officer is counted as the direct AI user. No other person is reported as affected.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7vgq5mgz2mo","primarySourceLabel":"BBC News, 10 August 2026: Senior Derbyshire detective under investigation over use of AI","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:15:35.140679+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:15:35.140679+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["consequential-response","police","misconduct-investigation","derbyshire","england"]},{"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":"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":"2026-paraiba-court-fines-lawyer-over-hidden-ai-commands-in-petition-bar-suspension","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Nesse processo, a Justiça havia negado a concessão do mandado de segurança e, posteriormente, a defesa apresentou um recurso, chamado de embargos de declaração. Neste artifício judicial, a Justiça encontrou a utilização de IA, com comandos ocultos distribuídos em sete páginas da petição.'; 'teste para saber se o juiz usa apenas IA nas decisões'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Durante a análise do recurso, o magistrado constatou a existência de instruções ocultas distribuídas em sete páginas da peça processual.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge of the 5th Mixed Court of Sousa found hidden commands spread over seven pages of a lawyer's motion for clarification in a teaching-competition writ, including an instruction to ignore impartiality and a note calling it a test of whether the judge used only AI in decisions.","causal_attribution":"The court's finding as G1 and Migalhas report it."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'O magistrado aplicou duas multas de R$ 16,4 mil por má-fé e ato contra a dignidade. O caso foi enviado à OAB e ao Ministério Público.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judge imposed two fines of R$16,400 each, for bad-faith litigation and for an act against the dignity of justice, and sent copies to the OAB-PB and the Paraíba prosecutors.","causal_attribution":"G1's account of the decision."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Ao rejeitar os pedidos de reconsideração apresentados pela defesa, o magistrado preservou as duas multas de R$ 16,4 mil e determinou o cumprimento das sanções anteriormente impostas.'; 'A petição foi intencionalmente instrumentalizada para servir de vetor de experimentos tecnológicos privados e não autorizados'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On reconsideration the judge kept both fines, writing that the petition had been intentionally used as a vehicle for private, unauthorised technological experiments to test computer systems supporting the judiciary.","causal_attribution":"Migalhas's account of, and quotation from, the reconsideration decision."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A defesa negou ter inserido os comandos deliberadamente e alegou erro material na exportação do arquivo preparado com apoio de IA.'; 'Em 30 de junho de 2026, o desembargador Onaldo Queiroga negou a tutela de urgência'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The defence denied inserting the commands deliberately and attributed them to an error in exporting a file prepared with AI support; an appeal judge refused urgent suspension of the fines on 30 June 2026.","causal_attribution":"Olhar Digital citing the court's communiqués; the defence position is the defence's own claim."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Dois advogados tiveram o exercício profissional suspenso de forma cautelar pela Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil, Seccional Paraíba (OAB-PB)'; 'após a abertura de procedimentos para investigar os dois casos'; 'O outro caso ocorreu na Comarca de Sousa, onde um advogado também passou a ser investigado.'; 'Segundo a Ordem, a medida é provisória e não significa que os advogados já foram considerados culpados.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In July 2026 the OAB-PB president preventively suspended two lawyers after opening procedures into two cases of hidden commands in petitions to the TJPB, one of them the Sousa case, stating that the suspension is provisional and not a finding of guilt.","causal_attribution":"G1's account of the bar's measure."}],"effects":[{"label":"a lawyer was fined R$32,800 over hidden commands aimed at AI tools in a petition and referred to the bar, which later suspended two lawyers in such cases","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://g1.globo.com/pb/paraiba/noticia/2026/06/19/advogado-e-multado-em-mais-de-r-30-mil-por-inserir-comandos-ocultos-de-ia-em-peticao-na-paraiba.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in full in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. G1 reports the June decision and quotes it; the decision itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"tjpb-communique-june"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/460320/advogado-e-multado-em-r-32-mil-por-prompt-usado-para-testar-juiz","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in full in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. Migalhas reports and quotes the reconsideration decision; the decision itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"migalhas-reconsideration-decision"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://g1.globo.com/pb/paraiba/noticia/2026/07/14/dois-advogados-sao-suspensos-por-suspeita-de-usar-comandos-ocultos-para-influenciar-inteligencia-artificial-em-processos-na-pb.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in full in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. G1 reports the OAB-PB suspensions and the defence submission in one of the two cases.","independence_group":"g1-paraiba-oab-suspension"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://olhardigital.com.br/curiosidades/2026/10/10/advogado-esconde-comandos-de-inteligencia-artificial-dentro-de-uma-peticao-para-tentar-influenciar/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in full in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. Olhar Digital cites the court's official communiqués (which returned 403 to the agent) for the defence position and the 30 June appeal ruling.","independence_group":"olhar-digital-tjpb-relay"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Whether any AI system used by the court processed the hidden commands.","Whether the lawyer or an AI drafting tool produced the hidden text.","The outcome of the OAB-PB disciplinary procedure, the prosecutors' review and the appeal on the merits."],"geography":{"basis":"The petition was filed in the 5th Mixed Court of Sousa, Paraíba, Brazil, in a case about a municipal teaching competition in Sousa (G1); the bar measure was taken by the OAB-PB. The lawyer's residence is not stated.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":["BR"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential-response case: a court fined a lawyer R$32,800 and referred the lawyer to the bar and prosecutors after finding hidden commands aimed at AI tools in a petition, according to G1 and Migalhas, and G1 reports that the bar later suspended two lawyers pending inquiries into two such cases, one of them this case. The defence denies deliberate insertion. The lawyer is a private person and is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the court's and the bar's response to hidden commands aimed at artificial intelligence tools: G1 and Migalhas report that the judge found instructions to ignore impartiality and a note testing whether the judge used only AI to decide, treated them as prompt injection and fined the lawyer, and G1 reports the bar's suspension over the same conduct. The defence attributes the text to an error in exporting a file prepared with AI support. No source reports any AI system reading or acting on the commands, so no relation describing an AI system's own action toward the lawyer is established (unknown; consequential response).","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Paraíba, Brazil: judge fines a lawyer R$32,800 over hidden AI commands in a petition, G1 reports; state bar later suspends two lawyers in such cases","summary":"A judge of the 5th Mixed Court of Sousa, Paraíba, found hidden instructions aimed at artificial intelligence tools spread over seven pages of a lawyer's motion for clarification in a public-competition case in June 2026, including an order to ignore impartiality and a note calling it a test of whether the judge used only AI to decide. The judge fined the lawyer two penalties of R$16,400 (R$32,800 in total) for bad-faith litigation and contempt of the court's dignity, and referred the case to the Paraíba bar (OAB-PB) and the state prosecutors, G1 reports. The defence said the commands were not inserted deliberately and blamed an error in exporting a file prepared with AI support. An appeal judge refused to suspend the fines on 30 June, the trial judge kept them on reconsideration, and in July, G1 reports, the OAB-PB preventively suspended two lawyers after opening procedures into two hidden-command cases, one of them the Sousa case.","incidentDate":"2026-06-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-06-19","aiSystem":"Artificial intelligence tools that might assist judicial drafting, targeted by hidden commands in a petition; no tool is named, and no source reports that any AI system processed or acted on the commands. The defence said the file had been prepared with AI support","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to G1 and Migalhas, the lawyer was fined R$32,800 by the court for hidden commands aimed at AI tools in a petition, referred to the bar and prosecutors, and, G1 reports, was one of two lawyers the OAB-PB preventively suspended in July after opening procedures into two cases. The defence denies deliberate insertion.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the lawyer fined and suspended in the Sousa case. The other suspended lawyer belongs to a separate case and is not counted; the candidate client is not reported harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"BR-PB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://g1.globo.com/pb/paraiba/noticia/2026/06/19/advogado-e-multado-em-mais-de-r-30-mil-por-inserir-comandos-ocultos-de-ia-em-peticao-na-paraiba.ghtml","primarySourceLabel":"G1 Paraíba, 19 June 2026: lawyer fined over R$30,000 for hidden AI commands in a petition","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:13.201004+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:13.201004+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["brazil","legal-profession","sanction","prompt-injection","court-ai","bar-suspension"]},{"id":"2026-uk-grok-sexualised-images-two-women-police-cases-closed-no-suspect-identified","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'Grok obliged, moulding her profile photo onto a nude body wrapped in see-through plastic'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Grok, the platform’s AI chatbot, obliged by moulding her profile photo onto a nude body in see-through plastic'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'were created using the chatbot and shared without her consent'; 'after speaking out, she saw AI-generated images of herself had been created without her consent'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Explicit or sexualised images of the presenter were generated with Grok at anonymous X users' request and posted on X without her consent around New Year 2026, after she had publicly criticised Grok.","causal_attribution":"The presenter's account to TBIJ/The Observer and, separately, to BBC Wales in January 2026; TBIJ inspected the requesting account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'After reporting her case to South Wales Police on 2 January'; 'wasn’t invited to give a statement until March'; 'Her case was closed after the police requests to X went unanswered'; 'Despite the efforts of investigators, no suspect could be identified'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the investigation was closed in May'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The presenter reported the image to South Wales Police on 2 January 2026; she was not asked for a statement until March, police requests to X went unanswered, and the case was closed (in May, per The Observer) with the force saying no suspect could be identified.","causal_attribution":"TBIJ's account from messages it saw and the presenter; South Wales Police's statement confirms an investigation and no identified suspect but does not address the X requests."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'about 300 images and videos of her posted during the Grok scandal'; 'the last of which was dealt with by the Metropolitan Police'; 'She reported several anonymous posts to the police'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'after exploring all viable lines of enquiry, no suspect could be identified'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The broadcaster estimates about 300 Grok-made images and videos of her were posted during the wave, including by the account that targeted the presenter; she reported several, one involving Jeffrey Epstein to the Metropolitan Police, which said no suspect could be identified.","causal_attribution":"The broadcaster's estimate and the Met's statement, both via the TBIJ/Observer investigation."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'is now in pre-action legal correspondence with xAI, part of SpaceXAI, alleging misuse of her private information'; 'It has not been possible, in the time available, to look into any communications with South Wales Police'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'is now in pre-action legal correspondence with SpacexAI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The presenter is in pre-action legal correspondence with xAI (SpaceXAI) alleging misuse of private information and breaches of data-protection law and the Equality Act; the company said it had not been possible in the time available to look into its communications with South Wales Police.","causal_attribution":"Reported from the correspondence described by TBIJ and the presenter's lawyer; no claim has been filed."}],"effects":[{"label":"a sexualised image of her generated by Grok from her profile photo at an anonymous user's request and posted on X","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"about 300 Grok-made images and videos of her posted to humiliate her","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"police investigations closed with no suspect identified after X did not answer information requests","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2026-09-29/grok-deepfakes-police-justice","kind":"investigative_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-30 (TBIJ, 29 September 2026, by Lydia Morrish); the original investigation, with police and company statements.","independence_group":"tbij-observer-investigation"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-women-taking-on-the-tech-giants-over-deepfakes-and-digital-abuse","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-30 (The Observer, 29 September 2026, same reporter, published in partnership with TBIJ); adds the May closure date.","independence_group":"tbij-observer-investigation"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98p4214577o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-30 (BBC Wales, 13 January 2026, updated 14 January); interview with the presenter during the wave.","independence_group":"bbc-wales-january-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","justice","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Who requested the images and where they were located.","Whether X answered any later police request.","Whether the presenter files a claim and its outcome.","Dates of the individual images and videos of the broadcaster; The Observer places them 'during the Grok scandal over Christmas', so the series may have begun in late December 2025, before the presenter's dated 2 January 2026 report."],"geography":{"basis":"The presenter reported to South Wales Police and is described by TBIJ in her bedroom in Wales; the broadcaster reported to the Metropolitan Police (TBIJ). The images were generated on X at the request of anonymous accounts whose locations are not established (TBIJ says some accounts in the cases it examined were clearly UK-based), so no event country is recorded. No court proceeding yet.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a core case (Grok-generated sexualised images of two adult public figures, requested by anonymous users, with police investigations closed without a suspect). Both women spoke on the record to TBIJ and The Observer; the presenter also to BBC Wales in January 2026. The images are not reproduced or described beyond the sources' wording.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-30"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"TBIJ inspected the X account and posts that requested the images and describes Grok's automatic public reply; The presenter described the image to TBIJ and, in January 2026, to BBC Wales; South Wales Police and the Metropolitan Police confirm investigations into the reports. Grok's role in generating and posting the images is not disputed by any party quoted; xAI did not respond to TBIJ.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"UK: Grok-made sexualised images of a Welsh presenter and campaigner against deepfake abuse and of a commentator and broadcaster, requested by anonymous X accounts around New Year 2026; South Wales Police and the Metropolitan Police closed their investigations without identifying a suspect after X did not answer information requests; the presenter is in pre-action correspondence with xAI","summary":"The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Observer reported on 29 September 2026 that police investigations into sexualised images generated by X's chatbot Grok had failed to identify anyone. A Welsh presenter and campaigner against deepfake abuse, who had criticised Grok publicly on New Year's Eve 2025, saw an anonymous X user ask '@grok' to put her in a bikini made of cling film; Grok generated the image from her profile photo and posted it. She reported it to South Wales Police on 2 January 2026, was not asked for a statement until March, and was told officers had not heard back from X; the case was closed (in May, per The Observer) with the force saying no suspect could be identified. The same account also targeted a commentator and broadcaster, who estimates about 300 Grok images and videos of her were posted during the wave, including one alongside Jeffrey Epstein reported to the Metropolitan Police, which likewise said no suspect could be identified. The presenter is now in pre-action legal correspondence with xAI (part of SpaceXAI) alleging misuse of private information and breaches of data-protection law and the Equality Act; the company told her lawyers it had not been possible in the time available to look into its communications with South Wales Police. BBC Wales had reported in January 2026 that explicit images of the presenter were created with the chatbot and shared without her consent.","incidentDate":"2026-01-02","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-01-13","aiSystem":"Grok (xAI) image generation on X, responding to public '@grok' requests by editing the targeted women's photographs and posting the results","aiProduct":"Grok","aiCompany":"xAI (SpaceXAI)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Two women, a presenter and campaigner and a broadcaster, had sexualised images of themselves generated by Grok at anonymous users' request and posted on X; the presenter calls the experience terrifying and her lawyers say the company's failure to help the police aggravated her distress; the broadcaster says the images were designed to humiliate her; both police investigations closed without a suspect after X did not answer requests (TBIJ; The Observer; BBC Wales).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two depicted people, a presenter and campaigner and a commentator and broadcaster (TBIJ; The Observer). The MP also interviewed by TBIJ is counted in her own case (2026-asato-v-xai-grok). Exact 2.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2026-09-29/grok-deepfakes-police-justice","primarySourceLabel":"The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 29 September 2026: Failed by the police, Grok deepfake victims are seeking justice themselves","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-30T04:13:49.631225+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T04:13:49.631225+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["grok","xai","x-twitter","deepfakes","non-consensual-intimate-images","ai-generated-images","police","south-wales-police","metropolitan-police","ofcom","uk","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2026-kumar-sdt-strike-off-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, Allegation 2.1 findings and the schedule of false/miscited authorities.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"RollOnFriday's listing of the bogus citations.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Allegation 2.1 was found proved: Kumar's 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI, including the non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502', the miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' (in reality an IP case) and a misattributed Baxendale-Walker passage.","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment; trade press accounts are consistent."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, Allegation 2.2 findings and the 13 April acceptance.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Allegation 2.2 was found proved: his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted and contained further errors, which he accepted on 13 April 2026.","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, sanction and reasoning passages.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Outer Temple's case note confirming the outcome and the 'first SDT case on a lawyer's use of AI' framing.","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"On 25 August 2026 the SDT struck Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers with culpability 'very high', stating it would have struck him off on either allegation alone; the tribunal invoked Ayinde v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment; the 'first AI case' framing comes from the SRA's counsel and is attributed."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, conviction allegation and sentence passages.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"RollOnFriday's Isleworth Crown Court reference (recorded as a discrepancy; the judgment controls).","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The parallel ground was his 29 January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 — recorded by the judgment as at the Central Criminal Court (RollOnFriday says Isleworth Crown Court, a discrepancy) — sentenced on 26 April 2024 to a 12-month community order with 150 hours' unpaid work.","causal_attribution":"The conviction ground is established by the judgment; the convicting-court discrepancy across outlets is preserved."}],"effects":[{"label":"lawyer struck off after AI-generated false citations in his disciplinary defence","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf","kind":"tribunal_judgment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Judgment PDF read on 2026-09-15 (25 Aug 2026): allegations, findings, sanction, panel, and the Ayinde v Haringey invocation.","independence_group":"sdt"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/lawyer-struck-off-for-using-fake-ai-generated-cases-before-sdt","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026).","independence_group":"legal-futures"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/foreign-lawyer-produced-ai-generated-false-citations-at-sdt/5127825.article","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026, Hyde).","independence_group":"law-gazette"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/first-lawyer-struck-ai-addiction","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026). Colour and the specific bogus citations; its 'AI addiction' framing is editorial joking, not a finding.","independence_group":"rollonfriday"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.outertemple.com/joshua-hitchens-acts-for-the-sra-in-the-first-solicitors-disciplinary-tribunal-case-on-a-lawyers-use-of-ai/","kind":"counsel_case_note","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (8 Sep 2026). SRA counsel's chambers' note: case number, dates, judgment link, and the 'first SDT case on a lawyer's use of AI' framing; participant-side account, recorded as such.","independence_group":"outer-temple"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The specific generative AI tool is not named in the inspected accounts.","The convicting court appears as the Central Criminal Court in the judgment and Isleworth Crown Court in RollOnFriday; the judgment controls but the discrepancy is unresolved in the inspected material.","Whether Kumar seeks to appeal the strike-off is not reported.","His employment status after the strike-off is not reported; the Law Gazette's employment background predates it."],"geography":{"basis":"Events: his practice and the SRA proceedings in England. Affected person: Kumar, on the Register of Foreign Lawyers in England and Wales. Court: the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal; the parallel conviction was at the Central Criminal Court (per the judgment; RollOnFriday's Isleworth Crown Court is a recorded discrepancy).","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an own-use, work-context adverse consequence with tribunal-found AI misconduct and a dated, career-ending sanction. This applies the charter's individual-review rule to the AI-sanction class; a class-level ruling is not required. Kumar is named in a public tribunal judgment; the parallel conviction ground is recorded for completeness and is not used to inflate the AI link. RollOnFriday's 'AI addiction' framing is recorded as editorial joking.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Tribunal-found: the 12 March 2026 Answer's misleading quotations and citations were produced with generative AI, and the 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors (accepted 13 April). The specific tool is not named in the inspected accounts.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence","summary":"On 25 August 2026 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after finding proved that his 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI — including a non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502' and a miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' that is actually an intellectual-property case — and that his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors. The tribunal said it would have struck him off on that allegation alone; the parallel ground was his January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. This is the SDT's first case on a lawyer's use of AI, per the SRA's counsel.","incidentDate":"2026-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-25","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-04","aiSystem":"Generative AI (tool not named in inspected accounts)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Career-ending professional consequence for the lawyer who submitted AI-generated false citations in his own disciplinary defence: struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers on 25 August 2026, with culpability rated 'very high'.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Kumar himself, the AI user struck off (SDT judgment). No client or third-party harm is reported in the inspected sources and none is counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal judgment, SRA Ltd v Abhishek Kumar, Case No. 12884-2026 (25 Aug 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T06:18:05.203137+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:43.433309+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","strike-off","fabricated-citations","sdt","own-use","uk"]}]}