{"id":145284,"date":"2026-03-03T11:33:30","date_gmt":"2026-03-03T19:33:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/03\/03\/the-audacity-of-ai-incompetence\/"},"modified":"2026-03-03T11:33:30","modified_gmt":"2026-03-03T19:33:30","slug":"the-audacity-of-ai-incompetence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/03\/03\/the-audacity-of-ai-incompetence\/","title":{"rendered":"The Audacity Of AI Incompetence"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Another day, another fictitious case citation. Blink, and you\u2019ll miss the most recent comedy of AI-created errors.<\/p>\n

Since the release of ChatGPT in late 2022, the frequency of court submissions riddled with AI-hallucinated gibberish has increased exponentially. Now, more than three years later, it seems that not a week goes by without a headline about yet another case in which a lawyer has submitted briefs to the court full of AI-hallucinated gibberish.<\/p>\n

One of the standout features of many of these cases is that the attorneys double down, rather than admitting the error of their ways. Sometimes, they even submit responsive papers in defense of their actions that include hallucinations.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Of course, it\u2019s one thing to read about these shenanigans, but seeing the audacity in action during an appellate argument? Priceless. And appalling. In equal proportions.<\/p>\n

I present to you, attorney for the appellant in Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jean LeTennier<\/em>, CV-23-0713 (2026), whose absolute chutzpah was on full display \u2014 captured on video<\/a> on October 16, 2025, during an oral argument before the New York Appellate Division, Third Department.<\/p>\n

About one-third of the way into the video, at 6:30, he faced a very hot bench. The judges were collectively, and understandably, piqued by both the number of hallucinations contained in his submissions and the fact that he seemed to be entirely unbothered by his own fictions.<\/p>\n

When asked about his response to the allegations that he\u2019d used AI, he appeared to be oblivious to the very admissions he\u2019d included in his responsive papers. Rather than answering their pointed questions about the errors, he deflected and tried to avoid the topic entirely*:<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: The citations used in some of the cases are not real citations (to) real cases.<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: (T)hat was never asserted to me.<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: You acknowledged it in your reply brief that some of the cases were not accurate.<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: The issue that I believe is really important is the fact that fraud was\u2026<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: It\u2019s important to us, so I guess you\u2019re going to have to deal with what\u2019s important to us.<\/p>\n

The judges were not dissuaded by his obfuscation. They persisted in their questioning, forcing him to concede that there were fake cases cited in his briefs. Undeterred, he then informed the panel that the AI issue was immaterial, apparently deciding that patronizing the bench was a winning tactical move:<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: Did you, as an attorney, write a brief and submit it to this court?\u00a0<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: Yes,\u00a0<\/p>\n

Court<\/strong>: Okay, so you own it, right?\u00a0<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: Yes.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Court<\/strong>: Okay, in that brief, we\u2019re telling you, and you are aware \u2026 not only were you made aware by the court, but by your adversary, that there are citations that are not real cases.<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: That\u2019s not germane to the fact that the SEC is telling this court \u2026<\/p>\n

Once that approach proved ineffective, he switched gears once again. When directly questioned about his AI use, he played coy, acting like a petulant adolescent who\u2019d been caught drinking. Finding that tactic to be futile, he once again reverted to his previously unsuccessful strategy of mansplaining to the bench:<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: So, I guess I\u2019m asking you, did you use AI to do the brief, and are these hallucinated cases, or did you miscite cases? Because you didn\u2019t give us any corrections \u2026\u00a0<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: AI is a tool that I think all of us use these days.<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: So that would be a \u201cyes, I used AI.\u201d<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: Well, not exactly. I mean, yeah, I used AI.<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: Okay. You\u2019ve got to check AI, right?<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: I do.<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: Well, evidently not too well, right?<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: It seems like we\u2019re not able to focus on the issue that they brought it \u2026<\/p>\n

When it became apparent that condescension wasn\u2019t working, he retreated to a defense of statistical probability. The exchange that followed captures the surreal moment that he attempted to treat a \u2018mostly accurate\u2019 brief as a job well done:<\/p>\n

The Court:<\/strong> Because we\u2019re on this side of the of the bench \u2026 that\u2019s why we\u2019re asking you about the citations in your brief that you provided to us and the response when it was pointed out that these are AI citations.<\/p>\n

Counsel:<\/strong> I believe that the citations that I used were accurate, like 90% were accurate, some of them which really aren\u2019t necessarily germane to the issues at hand \u2026<\/p>\n

The Court:<\/strong> Okay, your time is up! Thank you.<\/p>\n

Needless to say, the court was unimpressed with his assertion that a 90% accuracy rate was a passing grade for the truth, dismissing his argument in its written decision<\/a>, issued in January: \u201c(D)uring oral argument defense counsel estimated that 90% of the citations he used were accurate, which, even if it were true, is simply unacceptable by any measure of candor to any court.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the court\u2019s eyes, a brief that is only 10% imaginary is still 100% problematic, especially when that small slice of fiction accounted for \u201cat least 23 fabricated legal authorities across five filings \u2026 (and misrepresenting) the holdings of several real cases as being dispositive in his favor \u2014 when they were not.\u201d<\/p>\n

His stubborn resistance to reality was rewarded with sanctions in the amount of $5,000 due to his refusal to take accountability for his actions: \u201c(H)is reliance on fabricated legal authorities grew more prolific as this appeal proceeded \u2026 Rather than taking remedial measures or expressing remorse, defense counsel essentially doubled down during oral argument on his reliance of fake legal authorities as not \u2018germane\u2019 to the appeal.\u201d<\/p>\n

Importantly, the court acknowledged that AI does have a place in litigation, as long as attorneys and staff are sufficiently trained and carefully check their work for accuracy before submitting it to the court: \u201cAs with the work from a paralegal, intern or another attorney, the use of GenAI in no way abrogates an attorney\u2019s or litigant\u2019s obligation to fact check and cite check every document filed with a court. To do otherwise may be sanctionable \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a bold new era for the legal profession: one where \u2018mostly accurate\u2019 is a tactical hill to die on and 23 imaginary cases are just \u2018minor\u2019 details. As it turns out, that final 10% is the difference between a winning argument and a $5,000 audacity tax.<\/p>\n

* The court transcript excerpts have been lightly edited for readability and flow.<\/p>\n

\n

Nicole Black<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0is a Rochester, New York attorney and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>8am<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, the team behind 8am MyCase, LawPay, CasePeer, and DocketWise. She\u2019s been\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>blogging<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0since 2005, has written a\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>weekly column<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Cloud Computing for Lawyers<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, co-authors\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, and co-authors\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Criminal Law in New York<\/em><\/strong><\/a>. She\u2019s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>@nikiblack<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and she can be reached at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>niki.black@mycase.com<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

The post The Audacity Of AI Incompetence<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Another day, another fictitious case citation. Blink, and you\u2019ll miss the most recent comedy of AI-created errors.<\/p>\n

Since the release of ChatGPT in late 2022, the frequency of court submissions riddled with AI-hallucinated gibberish has increased exponentially. Now, more than three years later, it seems that not a week goes by without a headline about yet another case in which a lawyer has submitted briefs to the court full of AI-hallucinated gibberish.<\/p>\n

One of the standout features of many of these cases is that the attorneys double down, rather than admitting the error of their ways. Sometimes, they even submit responsive papers in defense of their actions that include hallucinations.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Of course, it\u2019s one thing to read about these shenanigans, but seeing the audacity in action during an appellate argument? Priceless. And appalling. In equal proportions.<\/p>\n

I present to you, attorney for the appellant in Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jean LeTennier<\/em>, CV-23-0713 (2026), whose absolute chutzpah was on full display \u2014 captured on video<\/a> on October 16, 2025, during an oral argument before the New York Appellate Division, Third Department.<\/p>\n

About one-third of the way into the video, at 6:30, he faced a very hot bench. The judges were collectively, and understandably, piqued by both the number of hallucinations contained in his submissions and the fact that he seemed to be entirely unbothered by his own fictions.<\/p>\n

When asked about his response to the allegations that he\u2019d used AI, he appeared to be oblivious to the very admissions he\u2019d included in his responsive papers. Rather than answering their pointed questions about the errors, he deflected and tried to avoid the topic entirely*:<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: The citations used in some of the cases are not real citations (to) real cases.<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: (T)hat was never asserted to me.<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: You acknowledged it in your reply brief that some of the cases were not accurate.<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: The issue that I believe is really important is the fact that fraud was\u2026<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: It\u2019s important to us, so I guess you\u2019re going to have to deal with what\u2019s important to us.<\/p>\n

The judges were not dissuaded by his obfuscation. They persisted in their questioning, forcing him to concede that there were fake cases cited in his briefs. Undeterred, he then informed the panel that the AI issue was immaterial, apparently deciding that patronizing the bench was a winning tactical move:<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: Did you, as an attorney, write a brief and submit it to this court?\u00a0<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: Yes,\u00a0<\/p>\n

Court<\/strong>: Okay, so you own it, right?\u00a0<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: Yes.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Court<\/strong>: Okay, in that brief, we\u2019re telling you, and you are aware \u2026 not only were you made aware by the court, but by your adversary, that there are citations that are not real cases.<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: That\u2019s not germane to the fact that the SEC is telling this court \u2026<\/p>\n

Once that approach proved ineffective, he switched gears once again. When directly questioned about his AI use, he played coy, acting like a petulant adolescent who\u2019d been caught drinking. Finding that tactic to be futile, he once again reverted to his previously unsuccessful strategy of mansplaining to the bench:<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: So, I guess I\u2019m asking you, did you use AI to do the brief, and are these hallucinated cases, or did you miscite cases? Because you didn\u2019t give us any corrections \u2026\u00a0<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: AI is a tool that I think all of us use these days.<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: So that would be a \u201cyes, I used AI.\u201d<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: Well, not exactly. I mean, yeah, I used AI.<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: Okay. You\u2019ve got to check AI, right?<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: I do.<\/p>\n

The Court<\/strong>: Well, evidently not too well, right?<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/strong>: It seems like we\u2019re not able to focus on the issue that they brought it \u2026<\/p>\n

When it became apparent that condescension wasn\u2019t working, he retreated to a defense of statistical probability. The exchange that followed captures the surreal moment that he attempted to treat a \u2018mostly accurate\u2019 brief as a job well done:<\/p>\n

The Court:<\/strong> Because we\u2019re on this side of the of the bench \u2026 that\u2019s why we\u2019re asking you about the citations in your brief that you provided to us and the response when it was pointed out that these are AI citations.<\/p>\n

Counsel:<\/strong> I believe that the citations that I used were accurate, like 90% were accurate, some of them which really aren\u2019t necessarily germane to the issues at hand \u2026<\/p>\n

The Court:<\/strong> Okay, your time is up! Thank you.<\/p>\n

Needless to say, the court was unimpressed with his assertion that a 90% accuracy rate was a passing grade for the truth, dismissing his argument in its written decision<\/a>, issued in January: \u201c(D)uring oral argument defense counsel estimated that 90% of the citations he used were accurate, which, even if it were true, is simply unacceptable by any measure of candor to any court.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the court\u2019s eyes, a brief that is only 10% imaginary is still 100% problematic, especially when that small slice of fiction accounted for \u201cat least 23 fabricated legal authorities across five filings \u2026 (and misrepresenting) the holdings of several real cases as being dispositive in his favor \u2014 when they were not.\u201d<\/p>\n

His stubborn resistance to reality was rewarded with sanctions in the amount of $5,000 due to his refusal to take accountability for his actions: \u201c(H)is reliance on fabricated legal authorities grew more prolific as this appeal proceeded \u2026 Rather than taking remedial measures or expressing remorse, defense counsel essentially doubled down during oral argument on his reliance of fake legal authorities as not \u2018germane\u2019 to the appeal.\u201d<\/p>\n

Importantly, the court acknowledged that AI does have a place in litigation, as long as attorneys and staff are sufficiently trained and carefully check their work for accuracy before submitting it to the court: \u201cAs with the work from a paralegal, intern or another attorney, the use of GenAI in no way abrogates an attorney\u2019s or litigant\u2019s obligation to fact check and cite check every document filed with a court. To do otherwise may be sanctionable \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a bold new era for the legal profession: one where \u2018mostly accurate\u2019 is a tactical hill to die on and 23 imaginary cases are just \u2018minor\u2019 details. As it turns out, that final 10% is the difference between a winning argument and a $5,000 audacity tax.<\/p>\n

* The court transcript excerpts have been lightly edited for readability and flow.<\/p>\n

\n

Nicole Black<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0is a Rochester, New York attorney and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>8am<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, the team behind 8am MyCase, LawPay, CasePeer, and DocketWise. She\u2019s been\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>blogging<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0since 2005, has written a\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>weekly column<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Cloud Computing for Lawyers<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, co-authors\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, and co-authors\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Criminal Law in New York<\/em><\/strong><\/a>. She\u2019s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>@nikiblack<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and she can be reached at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>[email\u00a0protected]<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Another day, another fictitious case citation. Blink, and you\u2019ll miss the most recent comedy of AI-created errors. Since the release of ChatGPT in late 2022, the frequency of court submissions riddled with AI-hallucinated gibberish has increased exponentially. Now, more than three years later, it seems that not a week goes by without a headline about […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":145254,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-145284","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Benchslapped-01-GUbBEL-scaled.jpg?fit=2560%2C2053&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145284","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145284"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145284\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/145254"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}