Incident Tracker

Legal AI incidents on the record

139 verified incidents · as of 2026-09-05

2026-09-03United States (state)Regulatory referral
Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
In the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Deutsche Bank's appellee brief cited four nonexistent authorities after counsel used Google's generative AI search tool without verification. The court struck the brief, referred the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and sent the sanctions-authority question to its Rules Committee.
2026-09-02IndiaOther
Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 947
Extending Pooja Ramesh Singh from tribunals to executive adjudicators, the Supreme Court of India set aside a customs penalty order of INR 4.25 billion, and the High Court judgment upholding it, because the order relied on AI-hallucinated precedents. Justice Datta held even an iota of fake material vitiates a decision and left disciplinary action to the officer's appointing authority.
2026-08-31United States (state)Warning
State v. Presti
On a Hawaii criminal appeal, self-represented appellant Cody Presti filed an opening brief citing 95 cases, 11 of which the court could not locate; six citations pointed to unrelated decisions. The Intermediate Court of Appeals treated arguments supported by nonexistent authority as waived, affirmed the conviction and warned that similar filings can trigger sanctions.
2026-08-28United States (federal)Fine
Booker v. The Kroger Co.
The US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia fined employment plaintiff's lawyer Christopher Johnson USD 8,000, payable to the court's sanctions fund, for citing four nonexistent or misrepresented authorities. Judge Grimberg found his show-cause response evasive and an attempt to shift blame to opposing counsel, required proof of ethics and technology CLE, and reserved further sanctions.
2026-08-28United States (state)Warning
Noble v. WMC Mortgage Corp., 2026 IL App (1st) 251168-U
In Illinois, self-represented litigant Sanja Noble's mortgage appeal brief included a hallucinated citation to Ferguson v. Georges for the standard of review. The Appellate Court found the citation actually led to People v. Mott, declined to strike the brief, disregarded unsupported assertions and affirmed denial of her petition.
2026-08-27United States (federal)Fine
Adams v. Matrix Providers
The US District Court for the District of Colorado fined counsel Ms Pearson USD 1,000 after her brief cited a nonexistent case and attributed a quotation to Justice Scalia from an opinion dated 2020, four years after his death. Judge Sweeney's order is on CourtListener RECAP; the available summary does not record whether counsel admitted using generative AI.
2026-08-27United States (federal)Warning
Ashmeade v. Amazon.com Services LLC
In the Southern District of New York, self-represented plaintiff Keith Ashmeade cited two nonexistent Southern District decisions while litigating discovery issues against Amazon. Magistrate Judge Reznik identified the false citations, warned that future filings with false or nonexistent legal authorities may draw sanctions, and tied the warning to Rule 11 duties for pro se litigants.
2026-08-27United States (federal)Pending
James v. Conley
In the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a magistrate judge found that plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint pleaded nonexistent police-training publications that counsel conceded were AI hallucinations. The report recommended denying the defendants' Rule 11 motion on safe-harbour grounds but referring the signing attorneys to the court's attorney-grievance committee; the district judge's ruling is pending.

SafeLegalAIrecords: safelegalai.com/tracker · CC BY 4.0