72 on the record · +1 this week
Incident coverage, regulator moves, and analysis. Jurisdiction always explicit; primary sources always linked.
analysisUK
England's Divisional Court referred two lawyers to their regulators over AI-fabricated citations and warned its restraint on contempt is not a precedent.
analysisUS
Oregon's ~$110,000 AI-sanctions case: terminating sanctions for fifteen fake cases and eight fabricated quotations, and why the headline figure is an aggregate.
analysisAUSTRALIA
A solicitor filed four AI-invented authorities; the court's referral led the regulator to bar him as a principal and impose two years' supervision.
explainerUKEU
The EU AI Act can reach a UK firm when its AI output is used in the EU. What the extraterritorial scope, the AI-literacy duty, and the deferred deadlines mean.
reportEU
A dated, primary-sourced timeline of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689: entry into force, the phased application dates, and the Digital Omnibus deferrals.
analysisUK
The first reported UK case of AI-invented case law: a litigant cited nine ChatGPT-fabricated decisions to the Tax Tribunal, which found them fake.
report
Stanford's research on legal-AI hallucination rates: general models fabricate at least 58% of the time; dedicated legal-research tools, 17% to 33%.
analysisCANADA
An Ontario lawyer filed a ChatGPT-fabricated factum, then lied about writing it — and drew a criminal-contempt referral to the Attorney General.
report
Verified figures on AI in legal practice — UNESCO's 44% use vs 9% trained, the IBA's 57% cross-border, ILTA's 80% GenAI, and CLOC's 30% in-house.
analysisUK
In Cork v Smith, a junior solicitor's AI tool fabricated the text of a rule that does not exist. Pinsent Masons self-referred to the SRA.
analysisINDIA
India's Supreme Court set aside two tribunal orders built on fake AI-generated precedents and ordered the Bar Council to frame AI rules for lawyers.
analysisSOUTH-AFRICA
South Africa's Legal Practice Council has published no guidance on lawyers' AI use — so its courts are referring practitioners to it instead, case by case.
report
From Mata v Avianca to a $110,000 Oregon sanction: what the verified record of AI-fabricated citations shows about courts, regulators, and the firms involved.
reportUS-FEDERAL
No national US rule governs AI in filings. A primary-sourced registry of representative federal judges' standing orders: certify, disclose, or prohibit.
analysisUS
Two New York attorneys, six ChatGPT-invented cases, and a $5,000 sanction — the June 2023 ruling that created the legal AI hallucination era.
explainerAUSTRALIA
New South Wales runs the strictest AI court rule in the common-law world: affidavits must declare AI was NOT used. Here is what the practice note requires.