The list of attorneys sanctioned for filing pleadings containing fictitious or materially inaccurate case citations (e.g., hallucinated case law) is growing by the day.
In a recent case, Elizondo v. City of Laredo, 5:35-cv-00040 (W.D. Tex. – Laredo, July 23, 2025), Plaintiff’s counsel filed a response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, which included multiple fictitious and materially inaccurate case citations. Finding that the attorney violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to properly review the citations for accuracy, the Court imposed a $2,500 monetary sanction and required the attorney to complete at least 3 hours of CLE on ethics or legal technology, including at least one hour of the use of generative AI in the legal context.
It has been widely reported that AI language models commonly generate fictional legal case information, including case names, citations, and even fabricated details of court decisions. This issue has become prominent as lawyers increasingly utilize AI tools for legal research and drafting court documents, sometimes without proper verification. The phenomenon is concerning because these AI-generated “hallucinations” can lead to inaccurate legal advice, misleading representations to courts, and potential sanctions for lawyers who rely on them.
Over an approximately 2-year period, there have been over 160 reported incidents (in the United States alone) regarding fabricated case law, with penalties and fines ranging from a simple warning, to the striking of briefs, monetary sanctions of up to $30,000, and public reprimands.
And although the use of generative AI can be beneficial in the legal industry, if unchecked, using generative AI for legal research can result in a costly mistake in litigation.
