Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Laurie Ibach and Mark Stewart v. Bruce Stewart
Supreme Court of Alabama · State supreme courts · AL · · opinion
The Supreme Court of Alabama on 2026-04-24 doubled appellate costs, awarded $17,200, prohibited further filings without counsel, and referred counsel to the Alabama State Bar in Laurie Ibach and Mark Stewart v. Bruce Stewart. Counsel filed a submission with five fabricated case citations and three false case quotations, including Quoted Janowiak v. Tiesi as supporting a proposition.
- Disposition
- The court doubled appellate costs, awarded $17,200, prohibited further filings without counsel, and referred counsel to the Alabama State Bar.
- Recorded conduct
- Counsel filed a submission with five fabricated case citations and three false case quotations, including Quoted Janowiak v. Tiesi as supporting a proposition. — outcome: referral; actor: lawyer; $17,200
- Canonical record
- Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules
What the court wrote
Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.
, concurring) ("offer[ing] … preliminary thoughts about whether and how [AI-powered large language models] might aid lawyers and judges in the interpretive enterprise"). Rather, the problem of fake citations in court filings is the result of attorneys failing to properly research and verify the results of AI-generated citations -- in short, attorney negligence in checking his or her work. And such failures often lead to problems like those in this case. In a recent case from the Northern District of Alabama, Judge Manasco set forth a few of the many harms that flow from the submission of fake legal authorities. As stated in Johnson v.
Authorities cited in the passage: Quoted Janowiak v. Tiesi as supporting a proposition
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face