Top Stories
All Sections
Finance
About
19 results for "courts"
New York's court system codified AI rules effective June 1, 2026—attorneys may use AI to prepare filings but must independently verify submissions contain no fabricated cases or statutes.
Federal circuits are issuing conflicting rulings on AI tools and attorney-client privilege, creating a compliance patchwork for law firms. Some now require zero data retention to preserve privilege.
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.
An MIT study of 4.5 million federal civil cases found AI-written court filings jumped from 1% in 2023 to 18% in 2026, while self-filed docket activity surged 158% — threatening to overwhelm federal courts with hallucinated citations and fabricated legal quotes.
Autonomous AI agents capable of signing contracts and executing transactions are in production now, but courts have yet to issue a definitive ruling on who bears liability — developer, deployer, or user — when they make costly errors.
Autonomous AI agents are executing contracts and commercial transactions at scale, but courts in 2026 have no settled framework for who is liable when they make mistakes.
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.
The White House's March 2026 AI framework asserts federal primacy over AI governance. More than 25 states with their own AI laws are not complying, and the legal fight is moving to courts.
More than 38 states have enacted AI laws, Colorado's high-stakes AI Act takes effect June 30, and Congress still has not passed a single comprehensive AI statute — leaving courts and state AGs to fill the vacuum.
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.
Businesses are deploying AI agents to negotiate and execute contracts autonomously, but no court has definitively settled who is liable when those agents make damaging deals.
Courts are now sanctioning lawyers for AI-generated fake citations at four to five cases per day — a rate that has transformed a slow-building professional risk into an institutional emergency for law firms.
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.
Major law firms are now writing AI privilege warnings into client contracts as courts sanction attorneys for AI-hallucinated citations — two converging risks the legal profession is only beginning to reckon with.
U.S. courts are sending urgent warnings to anyone using AI chatbots for legal work: feeding attorney communications into tools like ChatGPT may inadvertently destroy one of law's most fundamental protections.
A Manhattan federal judge ordered a former CEO to hand over 31 AI chatbot documents to prosecutors in a fraud case — ruling that AI conversations carry no attorney-client privilege.