Incident Tracker / United States (state)
Higgins v. State
·Texas Court of Appeals, Twelfth District·US-STATEOtherprovisional
The Texas Twelfth Court of Appeals affirms Kevin Higgins’s conviction. The opinion recounts defense counsel’s admission that an AI-produced evidentiary memorandum misstated case holdings because counsel did not read the cited cases, but holds Higgins did not establish Strickland prejudice.
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, Twelfth District
- Date
- 2026-07-31
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- artificial intelligence
- Conduct
- Defense counsel filed an AI-produced memorandum misstating several case holdings and admitted he had not read the cited cases.
- Outcome
- Other
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Provisional — written by the court-decisions pipeline, awaiting the editor
- Last checked
- 2026-09-07
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…
- Ex parte Allen Michael Lee, No. 10-22-00281-CR (Tex. App.—Waco July 19, 2023) (published)2023-07-19 · Texas Court of Appeals, Tenth District (Waco) · OtherIn 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…
- Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 24-CV-1099 (D.C. Ct. App.)2026-09-03 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Regulatory referralIn 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, ref…
- Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Group, No. 2428 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct.)2026-08-27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · WarningIn Pennsylvania, counsel for Paige and Ty Kiser cited a non-existent Superior Court decision, Com. v. Reid, for an appellate issue in a consumer dispute. The Superior Court called the authority counterfeit, suggested ch…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Higgins v. State”, safelegalai.com/tracker/higgins-v-state (accessed 2026-09-08). Data: CC BY 4.0.