Top Stories
All Sections
Finance
About
9 results for "AI hallucination"
A UK court issued a practice ban against a lawyer who submitted AI-hallucinated case citations, the first such disciplinary ruling in England and Wales — establishing that attorneys bear full professional responsibility for AI-generated content.
A Mississippi federal judge dismissed a case and sanctioned four lawyers after both sides submitted AI-generated filings they never reviewed — the most dramatic judicial response yet to AI hallucinations in courts.
Oregon's Court of Appeals chief judge issued a public warning that AI-fabricated court filings are "rapidly escalating," with one attorney fined $10,000 and another $8,000 for AI-hallucinated citations.
Anthropic is moving directly into AI legal services, joining Harvey, EvenUp, and Legora as courts accelerate sanctions for AI hallucinations in legal filings.
AI hallucination incidents in legal filings are now documented at four to five new cases per day — and courts are considering mandating hyperlinked citations to catch fabricated sources at time of filing.
Alston & Bird's April 2026 AI Quarterly finds courts issuing consequential AI rulings without a coherent framework, including a privilege-destroying ruling for law firms using commercial AI tools.
Courts are now detecting four to five AI-hallucinated legal citations in filings per day, with sanctions exceeding $100,000—and law firms are adding clauses warning clients about attorney-client privilege risks.
Attorneys submitting AI-generated briefs with hallucinated case citations are facing mounting sanctions — while courts split on bans vs. deterrence, and law firms warn clients that chatbot use may destroy attorney-client privilege.
A federal court ordered an Oregon attorney to pay $109,700 for submitting AI-generated filings with fabricated case citations—the largest penalty yet for AI hallucination errors in a legal document.