Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
Pittman v. Hazel and Olive, Inc.
·United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois·US-FEDRegulatory referralprovisional
On 2026-03-19, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case with prejudice, struck the AI-generated response brief, and ordered counsel to pay defense fees and costs. Counsel submitted a response brief with fabricated or nonexistent authorities.
- Court
- United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
- Date
- 2026-03-19
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Plaintiff's response brief was generated by artificial intelligence, cited fake cases, and counsel admitted failing to cite-check.
- Outcome
- Regulatory referral
- 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
- Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc. (Estate of Caviness v. Atlas Air), No. 24-11033 (11th Cir.)2026-07-10 · US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Regulatory referralIn a published opinion affirming dismissal of pilots' vaccine-mandate claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit condemned attorney Anthony Sabatini for briefs replete with fake and hallucinated citations,…
- Cartagena v. Dixon; Dixon v. Cartagena, Nos. 1:25-cv-03552 and 1:25-cv-05144 (S.D.N.Y.)2026-07-10 · US District Court for the Southern District of New York (Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis) · Regulatory referralA magistrate judge of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York struck a filing by attorney Tyrone Blackburn after finding 17 instances of quotation marks around language absent from the cited cases, p…
- Parnell v. Florida Department of Corrections, No. 25-11166 (11th Cir.)2026-07-10 · US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Regulatory referralOn the same day as Akerlund v. Atlas Air, another panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment against a prison employee and referred his lawyer for discipline after a reply brief…
- Hill v. Foundation Media LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05947 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. 2026)2026-09-29 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · WarningIn New York federal court, Judge Arun Subramanian ordered defence counsel to explain AI-affected quotations in a response brief, took no further action, and called the episode a wakeup call. Counsel's 1 October letter d…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Pittman v. Hazel and Olive, Inc.”, safelegalai.com/tracker/pittman-v-hazel-and-olive-inc (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.