Skip to content

Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

CVTEK, LLC (B-423943; B-423943.2)

Government Accountability Office · Federal specialty courts · · No. B-423943; B-423943.2 · opinion

Government Accountability Office on 2026-02-12 in CVTEK, LLC (B-423943; B-423943.2) found counsel's filing contained two citation defects involving nonexistent authorities, mischaracterized authority, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court warned counsel to verify legal authorities before future filings in the challenged filing before resolving the pending matter.

Disposition
The court warned counsel to verify legal authorities before future filings.
Recorded conduct
Counsel's filing contained two citation defects involving nonexistent authorities, mischaracterized authority, incorrect statutory or rule text. — outcome: warning; actor: lawyer
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.

intelligence) tool, CoCounsel, in preparing the supplemental protest. Resp. to GAO at 1. The protester’s attorneys expressly acknowledged that “some of the citations the AI tool indicates that he identified some irregularities and attempted to correct them, the attorney admittedly failed to correct all the erroneous citations in the final supplemental protest filed with our Office. Id. at 1-2. CVTEK’s counsel apologized and took full responsibility for the errors, explaining that new protocols have been implemented to ensure that “all case citations will be manually verified.” Id. at 2-3; Supp. Resp. to GAO at 1-2. As the courts and our forum have explained, “there is nothing inherently wrong with . . . properly and competently utilizing AI or any of its subsets to practice law or litigate cases,” but that “the evolving technology has many glitches (including hallucinations) and does not always work properly or as expected,” and “[t]his is why close and careful attorney supervision, fact-checking, and citation-checking are absolute necessities 8 Moreover, our Office generally does not review an affirmative determination of responsibility absent a showing of failure to properly apply definitive responsibility criteria, or where the protester identifies evidence raising serious concerns that, in reaching the responsibility determination, the agency unreasonably failed to consider available relevant information or otherwise violated statute or regulation. 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(c); Bannum, Inc., B-408838, Dec. 11, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 288 at 4. Page 9 B-423943; B-423943.2 when utilizing AI or any of its subsets.” KE Sys. Servs., Inc., B-423881 et al., Dec. 22, 2025, at 6; Oready, LLC, B-423524.2, Aug. 13, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 194 at 7 (both citing Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters., LLC, No. 17-cv- 81140, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98418 at *11 (S.D. Fl. May 20, 2025). In order to satisfy our statutory mandate to resolve protests expeditiously and to maintain our role as a meaningful, efficient protest forum, we expect all parties to prepare and present their cases carefully and diligently. Wolverton Prop. Mgmt., LLC-- Recon., B-415295.4, June 6, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 205 at 3. The use of AI tools to draft or assist in drafting legal filings can result in the citation of non-existent decisions, such that reliance on those programs without review for accuracy wastes the time of all parties and GAO. Raven Investigations & Sec. Consulting, LLC, B-423447, May 7, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 81 at 4. As we have explained, our Office necessarily reserves an inherent right to dismiss any protest and to impose sanctions against a protester, where a protester’s actions undermine the integrity and effectiveness of our process. Id. Here, because we deny this protest, we do not exercise our right to impose sanctions for submission of non- existent citations. The protester, however, is advised that any future submission of filings to our Office with citations to non-existent authority may, after a review of the totality of the circumstances, result in the imposition of sanctions. The protest is denied. Edda Emmanuelli Perez General Counsel

Authorities cited in the passage: Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters · 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(c)

compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub