Every time a lawyer cites a fake case spit out by generative AI, an angel gets its wings. When the lawyers in Mata v. Avianca infamously earned a rebuke for citing an AI-imagined alternate history of the Montreal Convention, many of us assumed the high-profile embarrassment would mark the end of fake cases working their way into filings. Instead, new cases crop up with alarming frequency, ensnaring everyone from Trump’s former fixer to Biglaw to — almost certainly — the DOJ. It seems no amount of public embarrassment can overcome laziness.
But so far, the system has stood up to these errors. Between opposing counsel and diligent judges, fake cases keep getting caught before they result in real mischief. That said, it was always only a matter of time before a poor litigant representing themselves fails to know enough to sniff out and flag Beavis v. Butthead and a busy or apathetic judge rubberstamps one side’s proposed order without probing the cites for verification. Hallucinations are all fun and games until they work their way into the orders.
It finally happened with a trial judge issuing an order based off fake cases (flagged by Rob Freund). While the appellate court put a stop to the matter, the fact that it got this far should terrify everyone.
Shahid v. Esaam, out of the Georgia Court of Appeals, involved a final judgment and decree of divorce served by publication. When the wife objected to the judgment based on improper service, the husband’s brief included two fake cases. The trial judge accepted the husband’s argument, issuing an order based in part on the fake cases. On appeal, the husband did not respond to the fake case claim, but….
Undeterred by Wife’s argument that the order (which appears to have been prepared by Husband’s attorney, Diana Lynch) is “void on its face” because it relies on two non-existent cases, Husband cites to 11 additional cites in response that are either hallucinated or have nothing to do with the propositions for which they are cited. Appellee’s Brief further adds insult to injury by requesting “Attorney’s Fees on Appeal” and supports this “request” with one of the new hallucinated cases.
They cited MORE fake cases to defend their first set of fake cases. Epic. A perpetual motion machine of bullshit, if you will. Seeking attorney’s fees based on a fake case was a nice touch. Probably should’ve thought of that at the trial court level, it probably would’ve worked.
The appellate court could not make the factual leap to blame AI for the fake cases, but laid out its theory of the case:
As noted above, the irregularities in these filings suggest that they were drafted using generative AI. In his 2023 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that “any use of AI requires caution and humility.” Roberts specifically noted that commonly used AI applications can be prone to “hallucinations,” which caused lawyers using those programs to submit briefs with cites to non-existent cases.
Well, there you go! Someone finally found a use for the Chief Justice’s infamous typewriter report. Now it almost seems like a useful expenditure of official resources instead of a cynical opportunity to dodge addressing that his proposed solution to the Court’s deepening ethical cesspool is… JAZZ HANDS!
But there’s a critical line between submitting fake cases and judges acting on fake cases. The urgency the courts feel for stamping out fake citations stems in part from the “there but for the grace of my clerks go I” fear that the judge might bless a fake argument. Now that this has happened to a trial judge out there, the high-profile embarrassment should mark the end of fake cases working their way into orders.
Where have I heard something like that before? *Re-reads first paragraph.*
We’re screwed.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
The post Trial Court Decides Case Based On AI-Hallucinated Caselaw appeared first on Above the Law.
Every time a lawyer cites a fake case spit out by generative AI, an angel gets its wings. When the lawyers in Mata v. Avianca infamously earned a rebuke for citing an AI-imagined alternate history of the Montreal Convention, many of us assumed the high-profile embarrassment would mark the end of fake cases working their way into filings. Instead, new cases crop up with alarming frequency, ensnaring everyone from Trump’s former fixer to Biglaw to — almost certainly — the DOJ. It seems no amount of public embarrassment can overcome laziness.
But so far, the system has stood up to these errors. Between opposing counsel and diligent judges, fake cases keep getting caught before they result in real mischief. That said, it was always only a matter of time before a poor litigant representing themselves fails to know enough to sniff out and flag Beavis v. Butthead and a busy or apathetic judge rubberstamps one side’s proposed order without probing the cites for verification. Hallucinations are all fun and games until they work their way into the orders.
It finally happened with a trial judge issuing an order based off fake cases (flagged by Rob Freund). While the appellate court put a stop to the matter, the fact that it got this far should terrify everyone.
Shahid v. Esaam, out of the Georgia Court of Appeals, involved a final judgment and decree of divorce served by publication. When the wife objected to the judgment based on improper service, the husband’s brief included two fake cases. The trial judge accepted the husband’s argument, issuing an order based in part on the fake cases. On appeal, the husband did not respond to the fake case claim, but….
Undeterred by Wife’s argument that the order (which appears to have been prepared by Husband’s attorney, Diana Lynch) is “void on its face” because it relies on two non-existent cases, Husband cites to 11 additional cites in response that are either hallucinated or have nothing to do with the propositions for which they are cited. Appellee’s Brief further adds insult to injury by requesting “Attorney’s Fees on Appeal” and supports this “request” with one of the new hallucinated cases.
They cited MORE fake cases to defend their first set of fake cases. Epic. A perpetual motion machine of bullshit, if you will. Seeking attorney’s fees based on a fake case was a nice touch. Probably should’ve thought of that at the trial court level, it probably would’ve worked.
The appellate court could not make the factual leap to blame AI for the fake cases, but laid out its theory of the case:
As noted above, the irregularities in these filings suggest that they were drafted using generative AI. In his 2023 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that “any use of AI requires caution and humility.” Roberts specifically noted that commonly used AI applications can be prone to “hallucinations,” which caused lawyers using those programs to submit briefs with cites to non-existent cases.
Well, there you go! Someone finally found a use for the Chief Justice’s infamous typewriter report. Now it almost seems like a useful expenditure of official resources instead of a cynical opportunity to dodge addressing that his proposed solution to the Court’s deepening ethical cesspool is… JAZZ HANDS!
But there’s a critical line between submitting fake cases and judges acting on fake cases. The urgency the courts feel for stamping out fake citations stems in part from the “there but for the grace of my clerks go I” fear that the judge might bless a fake argument. Now that this has happened to a trial judge out there, the high-profile embarrassment should mark the end of fake cases working their way into orders.
Where have I heard something like that before? *Re-reads first paragraph.*
We’re screwed.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
The post Trial Court Decides Case Based On AI-Hallucinated Caselaw appeared first on Above the Law.
