Incident Tracker / United States (state)
Robert Dastou v. Kathryn Holmes, No. 2381CV02212 (Mass. Super. Ct.)
·Massachusetts Superior Court·US-STATESanctions
A Massachusetts Superior Court sanctioned a defense attorney who used ChatGPT to 'format' filings, producing motions in limine and jury instructions riddled with hallucinated cases, a fake quotation, and a fictitious legal doctrine. The court accepted her agreement not to bill the client for the affected work and ordered her to complete a CLE course.
- Court
- Massachusetts Superior Court
- Date
- 2025-07-16
- Who used the AI
- Not recorded
- AI tool
- ChatGPT
- Conduct
- Defendant's counsel filed motions in limine and proposed jury instructions containing citations to nonexistent cases, a fabricated quotation, and a fictitious legal concept after using ChatGPT to 'format' her filings. The court held a hearing on the suspected misuse of generative AI.
- Outcome
- Sanctions
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-04
What was fabricated or misused
- Motions in limine and proposed jury instructions — citations to cases that do not exist; order did not list the cases
- Quotation attributed to a real case — not contained in the opinion; order did not identify the case
- Proposed jury instruction — fictitious legal concept with a footnote citing both a fictitious case and a real case that did not support the concept
- Real cases — misstated holdings; court could not discern poor analysis from generative AI misuse
What the court said
“One proposed jury instruction introduced what sounded like a legitimate legal concept, but that concept was fictitious.”
“If a lawyer uses generative technology, they may not blame errors in their work product on the technology.”
“The result was an instruction that referenced a fictitious legal concept and included a footnote with both a fictious case and a real case that did not support the concept.”
“Misuse of generative AI is sanctionable; poor drafting is not.”
Timeline
- CourtListener published the sanctions order in Dastou v. Holmes.
- Order barred billing for motions in limine, jury instructions, and related court time.
- Counsel’s sworn statement confirming completion of the MCLE course was due six months after the order.
Why this case matters
Dastou broadens the tracker beyond fake case names. The order describes hallucinated jury instructions, a non-existent legal concept, and a fabricated quotation, all in trial materials rather than an appellate brief. Unlike Williams or Al-Hamim, the actor was counsel and the court imposed concrete sanctions: no billing for the affected work and mandatory CLE. The court also separated sanctionable misuse of generative AI from ordinary poor drafting, which is a useful boundary for trial judges dealing with mixed defects in motions and instructions.
Practice note
Do not run jury instructions or motions through ChatGPT unless the output is compared line by line with the source material. For each cited case, confirm the quotation and holding in the opinion. For a model instruction, save the source instruction and citation trail before filing so the court can see it if asked.
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- State v. Coleman, 2026-Ohio-965 (Ohio Ct. App., 11th Dist.)2026-03-20 · Ohio Court of Appeals, Eleventh Appellate District · SanctionsAn Ohio appellate court fined a criminal-appeal attorney $2,000, removed him as counsel, struck his reopening application, and referred him to the Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel after his staff's ChatGPT use produc…
- Garner v. Kadince, Inc., 2025 UT App 802025-05-22 · Utah Court of Appeals · SanctionsIn the Utah Court of Appeals, petitioner's counsel filed a brief containing ChatGPT-fabricated citations, including a non-existent 'Royer v. Nelson', violating appellate rule 40. The court sanctioned attorney Richard Be…
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Reeves, 2026 OK 372026-05-27 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · WarningThe Oklahoma Supreme Court publicly reprimanded attorney Matthew Reeves under reciprocal-discipline rules after he admitted using ChatGPT to fabricate five citations in federal filings in Johnson v. Dunn — conduct alrea…
- Mezu v. Mezu (Md. App. Ct. 2025), No. 361 Sept. Term 20252025-10-29 · Appellate Court of Maryland · Regulatory referralMaryland's intermediate appellate court referred an attorney to the state Attorney Grievance Commission after his client's brief cited multiple fictitious ChatGPT-generated cases and he conceded he routinely did not rea…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Robert Dastou v. Kathryn Holmes, No. 2381CV02212 (Mass. Super. Ct.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/dastou-v-holmes (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.