Top Stories
All Sections
Finance
About
9 results for "hallucinations"
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.
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.
A paper at ICLR 2026 finds that reinforcement-learning reasoning training — the technique behind o3 and Gemini Thinking — proportionally increases tool-call hallucinations as model performance improves.
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.