Knowledge Base Regulation Tracker Standards & Frameworks OSS Directory AI Incident Database Research Paper Library Case Studies Society Articles News Jobs About Charter Sign inBecome a Member
Home/AI Incident Database/Lawyers sanctioned after filing a brief with six fictitious cases invented by ChatGPT

Lawyers sanctioned after filing a brief with six fictitious cases invented by ChatGPT

The first high-profile "hallucinated citation" sanction: a New York lawyer relied on ChatGPT for case law that did not exist, seeding a pattern repeated in hundreds of courts and adopted as a warning by bar associations.

Severity: Mediummata v aviancahallucinated citationslegal

Contribute

Spot an error, or know a record we should add? Members can propose additions and submit corrections.

Submit incidentReport a correction or request removal

Related in AI Incident Database

Sixth Circuit sanctions lawyers over fake appellate citations bearing the hallmarks of AI hallucination

In Whiting v. City of Athens the Sixth Circuit sanctioned counsel for briefs citing non-existent authority, one of the first appellate sanctions of the AI era.

Misinformation and fabricated claims2026

A US Department of Justice attorney files a brief containing AI-fabricated quotations and misstated holdings

A federal prosecutor's brief was found to contain quotations that do not exist in the cited cases, bringing the hallucinated-citation problem inside the Justice Department.

Misinformation and fabricated claims2026

Courts sanction lawyers in Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines, Lexos Media v. Overstock, Withers v. Aberdeen and LNU v. Blanche over AI citations

Four representative 2025 sanction orders, from an airline suit to an immigration case, show hallucinated citations reaching every level of US practice two years after Mata v. Avianca.

Misinformation and fabricated claims2025