Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (state)

Ex parte Allen Michael Lee, No. 10-22-00281-CR (Tex. App.—Waco July 19, 2023) (published)

·Texas Court of Appeals, Tenth District (Waco)·US-STATEOther

In the Tenth Court of Appeals of Texas, Chief Justice Tom Gray held that appellant Lee's brief cited three published cases that do not exist, noted the Argument section may have been AI-prepared, and overruled the issue as inadequately briefed. The court imposed no penalty and expressly declined a show-cause order or State Bar referral.

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, Tenth District (Waco)
Date
2023-07-19
Who used the AI
Lawyer
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
Appellant's counsel filed a habeas/bail-reduction appeal brief whose Argument section cited three published Texas Court of Criminal Appeals cases that do not exist; each citation was a jump-cite into an unrelated case, two of them from Missouri. The State flagged the citations and counsel never corrected them. The court observed the Argument section may have been prepared by AI.
Outcome
Other
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

  • Ex parte Vasquez, 248 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) — did not exist; citation led to In re Rodriguez, 248 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.)
  • Ex parte Clayton, 592 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) — did not exist; citation led to M.H. Siegfried Real Estate, Inc. v. Renfrow, 592 S.W.2d 488 (Mo. App. 1979)
  • Ex parte Martinez, 340 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) — did not exist; citation led to Cochran v. Cochran, 340 S.W.3d 638 (Mo. App. 2011)

What the court said

“None of the three published cases cited actually exist in the Southwest Reporter.”
Texas Court of Appeals, Tenth District (Waco), 673 S.W.3d at 756
“Each citation provides the reader a jump-cite into the body of a different case that has nothing to do with the propositions cited by Lee.”
Texas Court of Appeals, Tenth District (Waco), 673 S.W.3d at 756
“These deficiencies, although brought to the Court's and to Lee's attention by the State in its brief to this Court, were neither contested nor corrected by Lee in any kind of reply, amended, or supplemental brief.”
Texas Court of Appeals, Tenth District (Waco), 673 S.W.3d at 757
“it appears that at least the “Argument” portion of the brief may have been prepared by artificial intelligence (AI).”
Texas Court of Appeals, Tenth District (Waco), 673 S.W.3d at 757 n.2

Timeline

  1. Trial court signed the order denying Lee’s habeas application for bail reduction.
  2. Court clerk warned counsel that noncompliant briefs would be stricken.
  3. Court of Appeals affirmed after holding the sole issue inadequately briefed.

Why this case matters

Ex parte Lee is an early state appellate entry in the tracker and it differs from Mata v Avianca in outcome. The court identified nonexistent Texas criminal cases and noted possible AI drafting, but it had no information explaining why the brief was illogical. It therefore declined both a show-cause order and a State Bar referral. That makes the record useful beside Morgan and Thomas: fabricated authorities can lead to waiver and affirmance even when no sanction follows. The opinion also preserves the State’s citation-by-citation check, showing exactly how reporter jump-cites to unrelated cases can make false authority look real.

Practice note

Appellate counsel should verify each cited case in the named reporter before filing and compare the cited page with the proposition in the brief. If the State flags invalid authorities, counsel should file a reply, amended brief or correction rather than leave the point uncontested. Any AI-drafted language needs a human check in print reporters or traditional legal databases before submission.

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

  • Matter of Samuel, 2024 NY Slip Op 24014, 82 Misc 3d 616 (Sur Ct, Kings County 2024)2024-01-11 · New York Surrogate's Court, Kings County · OtherIn the Kings County Surrogate's Court, Surrogate Bernard J. Graham found that counsel for objectant Leopold Osborne filed reply papers in which five of six cited cases were erroneous or nonexistent, apparently from gene…
  • Kid International, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida, No. 4D2025-2599 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)2026-10-07 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · SanctionsIn Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, counsel for Kid International filed an AI-assisted brief citing a hallucinated case seven times and fabricated quotations from real authorities. The court affirmed on the me…
  • Cervantes v. Bianco, No. S295866 (Cal. Sept. 24, 2026)2026-09-24 · Supreme Court of California · Regulatory referralIn California, the state Supreme Court disapproved the improper use of AI tools in the Riverside County sheriff's briefing in a ballot-seizure writ case, after the law firm misquoted Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors…
  • Lisandrillo v. Palozzi, No. 4D2026-2262 (Fla. 4th DCA)2026-09-16 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · PendingIn Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, petitioner's counsel Jaclyn R. Soroka filed an emergency writ petition and related filings the court suspected contained AI-generated components, including convoluted false…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Ex parte Allen Michael Lee, No. 10-22-00281-CR (Tex. App.—Waco July 19, 2023) (published)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/ex-parte-lee (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →