{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-13T07:58:11.667Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"litigant","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":3,"minors":0,"coreRelations":3,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-quebec-appeal-court-costs-self-represented-appellant-ai-drafted-filings-nonexistent-judgments","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Elle réclame aussi 10 000 $ en dommages-intérêts'; 'références juridiques inexistantes générées par l’intelligence artificielle dans ses actes de procédure'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The respondent asked the Court of Appeal for $10,000 in damages, alleging that the appellant had included non-existent legal references generated by artificial intelligence in his filings.","causal_attribution":"The decision documents that the respondent made this request; the allegation is hers."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'parce qu’il a utilisé l’intelligence artificielle pour la rédaction'; 'déclaration d’appel et de son exposé, qui comportent deux références à des arrêts inexistants et une référence inexacte quant à un paragraphe cité'; 'L’appelant a contrevenu à cet Avis de la Juge en chef'; 'une forme de négligence plutôt que de la mauvaise foi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Ruling on the respondent's request, the court described the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph, and found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use through negligence rather than bad faith.","causal_attribution":"Finding stated in the Court of Appeal decision of 1 October 2026; the decision does not name the tool."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'une telle connaissance de la part de l’appelant n’a pas été démontrée'; 'il y a lieu de le condamner aux frais de justice en vertu de l’article 340 C.p.c.'; 'en matière familiale, de chacune'; 'REJETTE la demande visant à sanctionner un manquement au déroulement'; 'LE TOUT, avec les frais de justice en faveur de l’intimée.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because knowledge of the invented references was not shown, the court rejected the separate monetary sanction but ordered court costs against the appellant under article 340 C.p.c. to sanction the conduct.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the costs are the court's response to the AI-drafted filings."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'ACCUEILLE en partie l’appel'; 'peine de 100 heures de travail d’utilité sociale'; 'une mesure coercitive d’emprisonnement de 30 jours'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On the merits the court partly allowed the appeal for reasons unrelated to AI and reduced the contempt penalty to 100 hours of community work and 30 days of coercive imprisonment.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the contempt arose from non-compliance with family-court orders, not from AI use."}],"effects":[{"label":"a self-represented appellant was ordered to pay court costs because his AI-drafted appeal filings cited non-existent judgments","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in full in French by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from the copy of the decision hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database (PDF, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator or reviewer was involved. The locators quote the French original.","independence_group":"qcca-2026-qcca-1300-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the appellant used and what it produced beyond the two non-existent judgments and the inaccurate paragraph reference.","The amount of the court costs ordered against the appellant.","Whether the appellant has complied with the underlying orders or served the coercive imprisonment."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was heard and decided by the Quebec Court of Appeal from a Quebec Superior Court judgment (decision caption and paragraph 1), and the filings were made in that court. The decision states no residence for the appellant, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the court's own decision: the Quebec Court of Appeal described a self-represented appellant's appeal filings as written with AI and as citing non-existent judgments, held that he had breached its AI notice and ordered costs against him. The facts are documented by the decision; the appellant is a private party in a family matter and is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Ruling on the respondent's request (paragraph 28), the Quebec Court of Appeal decision describes the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and an inaccurate paragraph reference. The court treated that AI drafting and those references as established: it held that he had breached its AI notice (paragraph 30), contrasted his lack of shown knowledge of the hallucinations with an earlier case (paragraphs 31-32) and ordered costs against him for that reason. The AI output reached him as drafted text he filed (communicated_with) and informed the court's costs decision about him (informed_decision_about). The decision does not identify the tool or quote its output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Quebec Court of Appeal orders costs against a self-represented appellant whose AI-drafted filings cited two non-existent judgments (1 Oct 2026)","summary":"On 1 October 2026 the Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against a self-represented appellant in a family-law contempt appeal as a sanction for appeal filings that, in the court's description, he had written with artificial intelligence and that contained two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph. The court held that AI may be used to draft appeal filings only if the litigant verifies the authorities, found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use, and described his conduct as negligence rather than bad faith. It rejected the respondent's request for a separate $10,000 sanction and, for reasons unrelated to AI, reduced the contempt penalty imposed at first instance. The decision does not name the AI tool.","incidentDate":"2025-12-15","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-01","aiSystem":"Artificial intelligence, not identified in the decision, which the self-represented appellant used to draft his notice of appeal and brief","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against the self-represented appellant as a sanction for filings he drafted with AI that cited non-existent judgments, holding that he breached the court's AI notice through negligence (2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026). The amount of the costs is not stated.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used AI to draft the filings and against whom costs were ordered. The respondent and other family members are not counted as harmed by the AI-related sanction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Quebec Court of Appeal, Droit de la famille — 261553, 2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026 (copy hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","self_represented_litigant","costs_order","family_law","canada","quebec"]},{"id":"2025-north-carolina-federal-prosecutor-ai-drafted-brief-fabricated-quotations-reprimand","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"This filing misquoted a Fourth Circuit case, falsely attributed quotes to other cases and incorrectly described the court’s decision in several cases that he relied upon to support his argument, Numbers said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Numbers' list of problematic conduct includes fabricated quotes, misrepresentations of previous cases","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"filed a response with the court including “fabricated quotations and misstatements of case holdings”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A response brief filed in December 2025 by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rudy Renfer for the Department of Defense in Fivehouse v. U.S. Department of Defense misquoted a Fourth Circuit case, attributed quotes to cases that did not contain them and misdescribed the holdings of several cases, according to Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II's orders as reported by the News & Observer and Courthouse News.","causal_attribution":"The court attributed the false quotations to the brief Renfer signed; the fabricated authority is the AI-related artifact in this case."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"flagged fabricated quotes and inaccurate descriptions of court cases in a brief Renfer filed earlier that month.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"In a January court filing, Renfer attributed the errors to an \"inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Fivehouse pointed out the errors in his reply.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The self-represented plaintiff, a retired Air Force colonel, identified the fabricated quotes and inaccurate case descriptions in his reply at the end of December 2025, and Renfer then attributed the errors to the inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft.","causal_attribution":"none asserted"},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the court orders Assistant United States Attorney Rudy E. Renfer to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned. The show cause hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 10, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"must appear at a show-cause hearing this week","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 2 March 2026 the court ordered Renfer to appear on 10 March 2026 and show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(b)(2) and the court's inherent authority, and asked leadership of the U.S. Attorney's Office to attend.","causal_attribution":"none asserted"},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Renfer then admitted to using AI to draft the brief","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"he thought he had edited and fact-checked the brief that AI helped draft. In reality, he sent an unfinished draft to his assistant, directing her to file it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He told the court that he accidentally saved a new file over the original draft of the brief, “panicked,” and used artificial intelligence to catch up.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"At the 10 March 2026 hearing Renfer said under oath that, after accidentally saving over his draft of the brief, he panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft it, believed he had edited and fact-checked the AI-assisted draft, and in fact sent an unfinished draft to be filed.","causal_attribution":"Renfer connected the fabricated authority to his use of AI; the court later wrote that an attorney who outsources research and writing to generative AI assumes the risk of fictitious authority."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Renfer lost his job after resigning from the position he had held for 17 years, he said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Renfer also told Numbers, who presided over that hearing, that he had submitted his resignation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Renfer was reportedly terminated the next day.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"has asked the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Renfer left the U.S. Attorney's Office, where he had worked for 17 years: he told the court on 10 March 2026 that he had submitted his resignation, and Courthouse News reported that he was terminated the next day; the U.S. Attorney referred him to the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility.","causal_attribution":"The job loss followed the hearing on the AI-drafted brief; the sources do not state the employer's formal grounds."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Numbers II signed an order reprimanding Rudy Renfer","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Numbers limited the punishment to a public reprimand.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Numbers said Renfer “intentionally submitted a brief containing false materials to the court.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"His loss of employment imposes a financial burden well beyond the types of fines courts typically","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 28 April 2026 Magistrate Judge Numbers signed an order publicly reprimanding Renfer, writing that he intentionally submitted a brief containing false materials, that his professional reputation was in tatters, and that his loss of employment was a financial burden beyond the fines courts typically impose, so no fine was imposed.","causal_attribution":"The court tied the reprimand to the submission of fabricated authority produced with generative AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"a federal prosecutor lost his 17-year position and received a public judicial reprimand after filing an AI-drafted brief with fabricated quotations","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"},{"label":"a self-represented litigant had to identify fabricated quotations and misdescribed cases in the government's brief against him","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/judge-weighs-next-steps-us-121054156.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. The News & Observer report of 11 March 2026 on the 10 March show-cause hearing, read in its Yahoo News syndication; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"news-and-observer"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/federal-judge-punishes-ex-us-173015519.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. The News & Observer report of 28 April 2026 on the reprimand order, read in its Yahoo News syndication; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"news-and-observer"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rebukes-ex-doj-attorney-for-ai-generated-brief/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. Courthouse News Service report of 28 April 2026; the publisher host returned HTTP 403 to the fetcher, so the body was read from an Internet Archive capture of the same URL.","independence_group":"courthouse-news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/doj-leaders-must-explain-why-attorney-used-fabricated-quotes-in-court-filing","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. ABA Journal, 9 March 2026, relaying Bloomberg Law reporting of the 2 March 2026 show-cause order; it does not mention AI; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"bloomberg-law"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71231282/fivehouse-v-us-department-of-defense/?page=2","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. CourtListener RECAP docket for Fivehouse v. U.S. Department of Defense, No. 2:25-cv-00041 (E.D.N.C.), page 2, entries of February to March 2026; HTTP 200. The 28 April 2026 order itself was not available as a free document.","independence_group":"court-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool Renfer used, and whether the whole brief or only parts of it were generated; the inspected accounts say only that he used artificial intelligence to draft the brief after losing his own draft.","Whether Renfer resigned or was terminated: he told the court he had resigned, and Courthouse News reported that he was terminated the next day.","The outcome of the Office of Professional Responsibility referral, and whether the court found similar fabricated quotations in other filings he signed (the News & Observer mentions errors in some of his other briefs without detail).","Any consequence for the self-represented plaintiff beyond the work of identifying the errors; the inspected sources describe none."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and the hearing took place at the federal courthouse in Raleigh (docket entry of 2 March 2026; News & Observer). Renfer worked in that district's U.S. Attorney's Office. No other country is involved.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case on two independent reporting chains that both quote the court's orders and both report the attorney's statements at the 10 March 2026 hearing: a federal prosecutor said under oath that he used artificial intelligence to draft a brief that the court found contained fabricated quotations and misdescribed holdings, and the court responded with a show-cause order (documented on the docket), after which he lost his position and received a public reprimand on 28 April 2026. The affected person is a named public actor in a public court record. The AI tool is not identified and the resignation-or-termination question is recorded as unknown.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Renfer stated under oath at the 10 March 2026 show-cause hearing that he used artificial intelligence to draft the response brief after overwriting his own draft, and that he had not verified the cases it cited (News & Observer, 11 March; Courthouse News, 28 April). The court's 28 April order, as quoted by Courthouse News, treated the fabricated quotations and misdescribed holdings in that brief as the output of generative AI that Renfer failed to check ('An attorney who outsources core research and writing obligations to generative AI assumes the risk that its output will contain fictitious authority'); the News & Observer quotes the same order's statement that 'the submission of fabricated authority will not be tolerated in this Court'. The fabricated authority in the filed brief led to the show-cause order, the hearing, his departure from the office and the public reprimand. The tool is not identified in any inspected source.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Former federal prosecutor in North Carolina publicly reprimanded after admitting that a brief with fabricated quotations was drafted with AI; he lost his post","summary":"In December 2025 an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a response brief for the Department of Defense in a self-represented veteran's lawsuit over health-insurance coverage. The plaintiff identified fabricated quotations and misdescribed case holdings in it. The attorney first attributed the errors to an unfinalized draft filed by mistake. On 2 March 2026 Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the 10 March hearing the attorney, Rudy Renfer, said under oath that he had accidentally overwritten his draft, panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft the brief, and had not verified the cases it cited; he said he had resigned after 17 years in the office, and Courthouse News reported he was terminated the next day. On 28 April 2026 the court issued a public reprimand instead of a fine, writing that his reputation was in tatters and that his job loss already exceeded the usual fines.","incidentDate":"2025-12-23","incidentEndDate":"2026-04-28","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-03-09","aiSystem":"Generative artificial intelligence tool, not identified in the inspected accounts, that the attorney said he used to draft a response brief in federal court","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The attorney lost his position in the U.S. Attorney's Office after 17 years, was referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility and received a public judicial reprimand stating that his professional reputation was in tatters, all following the show-cause proceedings over the AI-drafted brief with fabricated quotations (News & Observer; Courthouse News). The self-represented plaintiff had to identify the fabricated authority in the government's filing; no further consequence for him is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user harmed: the attorney who said he used AI to draft the brief and who lost his job and was reprimanded. The plaintiff's burden of identifying the errors is described, but no consequence to him is reported, so he is not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/judge-weighs-next-steps-us-121054156.html","primarySourceLabel":"The News & Observer (via Yahoo News), 11 March 2026: report of the show-cause hearing at which the attorney admitted using AI","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:23:08.421295+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:23:08.421295+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal","fabricated_citations","hallucination","court_sanction","professional_harm","government","united_states","north_carolina"]},{"id":"2025-aberdeen-mississippi-fee-suit-ai-hallucinated-citations-four-attorneys-sanctioned","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 2: 'the Court was unable to locate certain legal authorities cited within them. Specifically, the Court determined that the following filings contained hallucinatory citations'; p. 3: 'the attorneys admitted that the hallucinatory citations cited by them, and identified by the Court, resulted from unverified AI use.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In *Withers v. City of Aberdeen*, attorneys for both sides cited no fewer than six entirely fabricated precedents.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In late 2025, legal memoranda filed for both sides in a fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.) cited cases that do not exist; the court identified one such citation in the City's summary-judgment memorandum, three in its fee-challenge memorandum and two in the plaintiff's opposition, and the attorneys admitted the citations resulted from unverified AI use.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's sanctions order on the attorneys' own admissions."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 3: 'Williams admitted to using an AI tool to conduct legal research, and Wilson admitted to using generative AI to draft her respective filing. Neither of them verified the legal authority output by AI before filing their briefs.'; p. 9: 'She explained that she used “First Drafts,” an AI- powered program for drafting legal documents.'; p. 14: 'it had acquired software that was built for in-house legal research.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted the opposition using 'First Drafts', an AI-powered drafting program, and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool; neither verified the AI output before filing.","causal_attribution":"Admissions recorded and findings made in the sanctions order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 21: 'Kathleen M. Wilson’s pro hac vice admission in this case is REVOKED.'; 'Wilson is hereby ORDERED to pay a $2,500 fine to the registry of this Court'; 'Williams is hereby ORDERED to pay a $3,500 fine to the registry of this Court'; 'Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway is DISQUALIFIED from further participation in this case.'; p. 22: 'Mark McClinton is DISQUALIFIED from further participation in this case.'; 'send a copy of this Sanctions Order to the Mississippi Bar, the Louisiana Bar, and the Texas Bar.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"p. 20: 'Wilson and Williams are hereby BARRED from entering an appearance in any case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi for the period of two (2) years'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 June 2026 the court revoked Wilson's and Williams' pro hac vice admissions, barred both from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years, fined Wilson $2,500 and Williams $3,500, ordered Wilson to complete an AI ethics CLE, disqualified the two local counsel (Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway and Mark C. McClinton, who signed without checking the citations) with $1,000 fines each, and sent the order to the Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas bars.","causal_attribution":"The sanctions are the court's response to the AI-generated false citations and the failure to verify them."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Given the pending sanctions issue, this case is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court. The final pretrial conference scheduled on February 19, 2026 and trial scheduled on March 23, 2026 are hereby cancelled'; 'The following pending motions are hereby TERMINATED'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"p. 20: 'The Court is cognizant that upon disqualifying the resident attorneys the litigants are effectively left without representation in this case, and that this can cause hardship for them.'; p. 22: 'the Court will dismiss this case without further notice.'; p. 12: 'The Court was unable to resolve that dispositive motion given the tainted filings, and it effectively inhibited the case from proceeding further.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because of the sanctions issue the court stayed the case, cancelled the pretrial conference and the 23 March 2026 trial, and terminated the pending summary-judgment and fee motions; after disqualifying all four attorneys it gave both litigants 60 days to find new counsel, acknowledging this could cause them hardship, and warned the plaintiff that the case would be dismissed if no counsel appeared or he did not elect to proceed pro se by 7 August 2026.","causal_attribution":"The stay and loss of counsel follow directly from the sanctions proceeding over the AI-generated citations, per the court's orders."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'directing attorney Kathleen M. Wilson to show cause as to why this Court should not hold her in contempt for her failure to pay the fine'; 'Wilson shall have until September 16, 2026 to (1) pay the monetary fine'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 17 August 2026, after a show-cause order over Wilson's failure to pay the fine, the court extended her deadline to pay it and to complete the CLE to 16 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"Follow-on enforcement of the sanctions order."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys who used AI tools without verifying the output lost their pro hac vice admissions, were barred from the district for two years and fined","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"two local counsel were disqualified and fined for signing the AI-drafted filings without checking the citations","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the case was stayed, the trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel, with the plaintiff's case facing dismissal if no new counsel appeared","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.123.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Sanctions Order, ECF 123, filed 8 June 2026 (Senior Judge Sharion Aycock), 23 pages; full text read via pdftotext on 2026-09-29 (RECAP copy on CourtListener).","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.120.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order staying the case, ECF 120, filed 4 February 2026; one page, read in full on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.133.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order of 17 August 2026, ECF 133, extending one attorney's deadline to pay the fine and complete the CLE; one page, read in full on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/technology-science/artc-courtroom-hallucinations-lawyers-cite-precedents-dreamt-up-by-ai-as-clients-sabotage-their-own-cases","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"i24NEWS aggregate piece (Sep 2026) read on 2026-09-29 from the Internet Archive capture of 10 Sep 2026 (the live page is a JavaScript shell). It mentions the case in two sentences; its count of 'no fewer than six' fabricated precedents matches the order's list and is not an independent check.","independence_group":"i24news"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which underlying model the 'First Drafts' program and Williams' research tool used; the order names neither vendor's model.","Whether the Mississippi, Louisiana or Texas bars opened disciplinary proceedings, and whether Wilson paid by 16 September 2026.","Whether the litigants retained new counsel by 7 August 2026 and what became of the case.","The dates of the other tainted filings Wilson drafted in this case (ECF 123 p.11); they may predate 5 November 2025."],"geography":{"basis":"Federal case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi (Aberdeen Division); the order describes the attorneys as licensed in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published from the court's own sanctions order and related docket orders, which record the attorneys' admissions of unverified AI use and the resulting sanctions, stay and loss of counsel. Attorneys are named as they are in the public order; the plaintiff, a private litigant, is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records the two drafting attorneys' admissions that their filings were produced with AI tools (Wilson: 'First Drafts', a generative drafting program; Williams: an unnamed in-house AI legal research product) and finds that their unverified reliance on the output produced the fabricated citations.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.): four attorneys on both sides sanctioned after AI tools produced fabricated case citations; trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel","summary":"In a fee dispute between a Louisiana attorney and the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi, briefs filed for both sides in late 2025 cited six cases that do not exist. The attorneys admitted the citations came from unverified AI use: the plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted her filing with an AI drafting program called 'First Drafts', and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool. Senior Judge Sharion Aycock stayed the case and cancelled the March 2026 trial, then on 8 June 2026 revoked both attorneys' pro hac vice admissions, barred them from the district for two years and fined them $2,500 and $3,500, and disqualified and fined the two local counsel who had signed the filings. Both litigants were left without counsel and given 60 days to find new representation.","incidentDate":"2025-11-05","incidentEndDate":"2026-06-08","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-06-08","aiSystem":"'First Drafts', an AI-powered legal drafting program (plaintiff's counsel), and an unnamed in-house AI legal research software product (City's counsel); underlying models not stated","aiProduct":"First Drafts and unidentified legal research tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Per the court's orders, two attorneys who filed AI-generated fabricated citations lost their pro hac vice admissions, were barred from the district for two years and fined $2,500 and $3,500; two local counsel who signed the filings were disqualified and fined $1,000 each; the case was stayed with its trial cancelled, and the plaintiff was left without counsel under threat of dismissal.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Sanctions Order (ECF 123). Participant users: Wilson and Williams, the two attorneys who used the AI tools and were sanctioned (2). Others harmed through their use: the two local counsel disqualified and fined (Ridgeway, McClinton) and the plaintiff, an individual whose case was stayed, whose trial was cancelled and who was left without counsel (3). The City of Aberdeen is an organisation and is not counted; no other person's harm is stated.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MS","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.123.0_1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Withers v. City of Aberdeen, No. 1:24-cv-218-SA-RP (N.D. Miss.), Sanctions Order, ECF 123, 8 June 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:31.680119+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.045067+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","sanction","fabricated-citations","pro-hac-vice","own-use","mississippi"]}]}