Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Rasheem Carter, et al. v. UZGlobal LLC, et al.
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico · Federal district courts · NM · · No. 1:23-cv-01013-MV-JHR · order
The District of New Mexico on 2026-05-01 fined counsel $1,000 payable to the clerk, ordered bar reporting, required proof of AI CLE, and barred passing costs to clients in Rasheem Carter, et al. v. UZGlobal LLC, et al. Counsel filed a brief with four fabricated case citations.
- Disposition
- The court fined counsel $1,000 payable to the clerk, ordered bar reporting, required proof of AI CLE, and barred passing costs to clients.
- Recorded conduct
- Counsel filed a brief with four fabricated case citations. — outcome: referral; actor: lawyer; $1,000
- 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.
On June 27, 2025, theCourtissued its first showcauseorder,identifying threeadditionalcases in theMarch response brief that it could not locate. [Doc. 101, at 2]. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to (1) produce PDF versions of every case cited in the March response brief and three motions to compel; (2) describetheactionsofeachattorneyinvolvedinthecreationofthebriefs; (3)describehowcounsel became aware of the non-existent cases; (4) identify any other filings that could contain nonexistent cases; and (5) show cause why counsel should not be sanctioned. Id. at 3. II. BRIEFING SUMMARY Plaintiffs identified sixteen total cases across the March response brief and two motions to compel that did not exist. [Doc.
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face