Court incidents, official rule revisions and analysis in United States (state), as they enter the record. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.https://safelegalai.comen-gbCC BY 4.0 — SafeLegalAI, published by Cognesio LLPhttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/ai-chat-logs-as-evidence-in-courthttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/ai-chat-logs-as-evidence-in-court17 rulings and opinions on AI privilege, discovery and AI-generated evidence, 2024 to 2026, coded by question, plus what five note-taker vendors say they keep.Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticleukus-federalus-stateeuvendor:openai-chatgptvendor:anthropic-claudevendor:microsoft-copilothttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/consumer-ai-legal-chatbots-on-the-recordhttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/consumer-ai-legal-chatbots-on-the-record12 consumer legal-AI services on one schema, 41 self-represented rows in the incident tracker, two docket studies of AI pro se filings, and the regulators.Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticleukus-federalus-stateinternationalvendor:openai-chatgpthttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/douglas-deutsche-bank-ai-citations-dc-appeals-2026-09https://safelegalai.com/analysis/douglas-deutsche-bank-ai-citations-dc-appeals-2026-09The D.C. Court of Appeals struck a Deutsche Bank appellee brief after counsel used Google's generative AI search tool without verifying four nonexistent cases.Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticleus-federalus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/lpc-commercial-ar-razzaaq-phantom-quotes-virginia-2026-09https://safelegalai.com/analysis/lpc-commercial-ar-razzaaq-phantom-quotes-virginia-2026-09The Virginia Court of Appeals ordered counsel to take AI or appellate-practice CLE after an appellee brief attributed 25 phantom quotations to Virginia cases.Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticleus-federalus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/must-lawyers-verify-ai-output-explainerhttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/must-lawyers-verify-ai-output-explainerAcross 130 country records, 50 have a binding, guidance, proposed or case-law answer on verification of AI output.Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticleukirelandus-federalus-statecanadaaustraliaindiasingaporeinternationalotherhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/douglas-v-deutsche-bank-national-trusthttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/douglas-v-deutsche-bank-national-trustIn 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. Primary source: Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 24-CV-1099 (D.C. Ct. App. 3 Sep 2026), published order PDF via CourtListener storage — https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/03/douglas_v._deutsche_bank_national_trust_co._published_order.pdfThu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/legal-ai-regulation-summer-2026-what-changedhttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/legal-ai-regulation-summer-2026-what-changedSummer 2026 reviewed: the SRA's AI warning notice, Ireland's mandatory AI declaration in civil filings and the EU's deferred high-risk AI Act duties.Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticleukirelandus-stateeuindiasouth-africainternationalhttps://safelegalai.com/newsletter/this-week-in-legal-ai-safety-2026-36https://safelegalai.com/newsletter/this-week-in-legal-ai-safety-2026-36Issue 1: 50 incidents added, the SRA's misuse-of-AI warning notice, Ireland's Practice Direction HC 142, deferred EU high-risk duties, 128 tools on record.Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticleukirelandus-federalus-stateeusouth-africainternationalhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/state-v-prestihttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/state-v-prestiOn 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. Primary source: State v. Presti, No. CAAP-24-0000826 (Haw. Ct. App. 31 Aug 2026), published opinion (official PDF) — https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/CAAP-24-0000826.pdfMon, 31 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/noble-v-wmc-mortgagehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/noble-v-wmc-mortgageIn 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. Primary source: Noble v. WMC Mortgage Corp., 2026 IL App (1st) 251168-U (28 Aug 2026), order PDF via Charlotin database — https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2999/Noble_v._WMC_Mortgage_Corp_USA_28_August_2026.pdfFri, 28 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/kiser-v-desimone-auto-grouphttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/kiser-v-desimone-auto-groupIn 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 chatbot use as an explanation, treated the issue as waived for underdevelopment, and affirmed judgment for the auto-dealer defendants. Primary source: Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Group, No. 2428 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct. 27 Aug 2026), memorandum PDF via Charlotin database — https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2995/Kiser_P._v._DeSimone_Auto_Group_USA_27_AUgust_2026.pdfThu, 27 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/salloum-v-department-of-transportationhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/salloum-v-department-of-transportationIn Colorado, self-represented appellant Ayman Salloum filed an opening brief citing three authorities the Court of Appeals could not verify, including one dated in the future. Applying Al-Hamim's warning on generative-AI hallucinations, the court declined sanctions but cautioned that future filings with unverified AI-generated authority may be sanctioned. Primary source: Salloum v. Department of Transportation, No. 25CA1748 (Colo. App. 27 Aug 2026), opinion PDF via Charlotin database — https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2993/Salloum_v_Dept_of_Transportation_USA_27_August_2026.pdfThu, 27 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/varma-v-bank-of-new-york-mellonhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/varma-v-bank-of-new-york-mellonThe California Court of Appeal sanctioned self-represented appellants in Varma after their opening brief used nonexistent cases, false quotations and unsupported propositions the court attributed to generative AI hallmarks. The court ordered them to pay respondent's appellate fees in an amount to be set by the trial court and sent the opinion to the State Bar. Primary source: Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon, No. E085566 (Cal. Ct. App. 27 Aug 2026), opinion PDF via Charlotin database — https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2994/Varma_v._BNYM_USA_August_2026.pdfThu, 27 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/benjamin-v-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/benjamin-v-stateIn Maryland, appellate counsel filed a criminal brief with multiple inaccurate citations. The Appellate Court compared the problem to Mezu, said fake AI-generated cases are improper, accepted counsel's corrective efforts, declined to refer counsel to the Attorney Grievance Commission and warned lawyers to verify all AI-generated citations before filing. Primary source: Benjamin v. State, No. 801 Sept. Term 2024 (Md. App. Ct. 25 Aug 2026), opinion PDF via Charlotin database — https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2946/Benjamin_v_State_USA_25_August_2026.pdfTue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/lpc-commercial-services-v-ar-razzaaq-propertieshttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/lpc-commercial-services-v-ar-razzaaq-propertiesIn Virginia, appellee's counsel in LPC Commercial Services filed a brief with 25 phantom quotations attributed to Virginia cases, which the Court of Appeals attributed to unchecked computer-assisted research. The court affirmed the judgment, ordered counsel to complete AI or appellate-practice CLE within six months, and noted that no monetary losses were claimed or established. Primary source: LPC Commercial Services, LLC v. Ar-Razzaaq Properties, LLC, Record No. 1407-25-4 (Va. Ct. App. 25 Aug 2026), opinion PDF via CourtListener storage — https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/08/25/lpc_commercial_services_llc_fka_lpc_commercial_services_inc._v..pdfTue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/capital-standard-v-us-bankhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/capital-standard-v-us-bankFlorida's Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a foreclosure-related declaratory judgment and, in a separate section citing the Charlotin database, fined appellant's counsel USD 1,500, awarded U.S. Bank its appellate fees, and referred him to The Florida Bar for rampant hallucinated citations that persisted after a show-cause order. Counsel may not bill his client for either amount. Primary source: Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. 2D2024-1392 (Fla. 2d DCA 21 Aug 2026), opinion (Florida Courts) — https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2494161/opinion/Opinion_2024-1392.pdfFri, 21 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/in-re-faisal-ahmed-minnesotahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/in-re-faisal-ahmed-minnesotaMinnesota lawyer Faisal Ahmed agreed to a 30-day suspension, approved by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, for a 2025 Hennepin County District Court memorandum that cited two nonexistent, AI-hallucinated decisions. Press coverage describes it as Minnesota's first attorney suspension tied to AI citations, following disciplinary actions in Nebraska and California earlier in 2026. The order has not been located. Primary source: MPR News, 21 Aug 2026 (press report; primary order not located) — https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/08/21/lawyer-in-minnesota-suspended-over-fake-ai-case-citationsFri, 21 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/nm-supreme-court-aaronshttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/nm-supreme-court-aaronsThe Supreme Court of New Mexico held veteran defence lawyer Stephen Aarons in contempt, ordered him to pay USD 5,000 to the client protection fund, removed him from a murder appeal and referred him to the state Disciplinary Board after his ChatGPT-assisted brief invented witnesses and testimony. All briefs were struck and the appeal restarted with a public defender. Primary source: Santa Fe New Mexican, August 2026 (press report; primary order not located) — https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/new-mexico-high-court-blasts-lawyer-takes-him-off-case-for-ai-errors-in-brief/article_a162daf7-95a4-4010-a017-dedcbdb68b0b.htmlFri, 21 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/jmor-properties-v-artist-alleyhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/jmor-properties-v-artist-alleyAfter dismissing a certiorari petition that cited a fabricated Fourth District decision, Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal considered counsel's show-cause response and imposed the sanction of referral to The Florida Bar. The court said it felt compelled to do so under Florida's amended Rule 2.515(d)(2), which requires signers to certify that cited authorities exist. Primary source: JMOR Properties, LLC v. Artist Alley Townhomes, LLC, No. 4D2026-1787 (Fla. 4th DCA 12 Aug 2026), opinion (Florida Courts) — https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2493470/opinion/Opinion_2026-1787.pdfWed, 12 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ct-ai-legal-system-committee-final-reporthttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ct-ai-legal-system-committee-final-reportFinal report of the committee The committee established by the Connecticut Judicial Branch to examine AI in the legal system closed with a final report on 10 August 2026. It records that Practice Book section 4-9 and related amendments discharged the rules charge, sets eight guiding principles for judicial AI use, and describes the Branch's permanent AI governance structure. Primary source: Connecticut Judicial Branch — Final Report — https://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/artificial_intelligence_CLS/FinalReport_R.pdfMon, 10 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/elliott-v-new-york-bariatric-grouphttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/elliott-v-new-york-bariatric-groupIn what commentators describe as the first documented prompt-injection attempt aimed at a US court, a Connecticut Superior Court judge found that a self-represented plaintiff had hidden white-on-white instructions telling any AI reader to rule in his favour, then repeated the tactic after a warning. The court revoked his electronic filing privileges and required paper filings in person. Primary source: Alston & Bird Privacy blog, August 2026 (press report; primary order not located, decision available only on Westlaw/Trellis) — https://www.alstonprivacy.com/connecticut-court-issues-first-prompt-injection-sanctions/Thu, 06 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/kleyman-law-group-v-kaloidishttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/kleyman-law-group-v-kaloidisIn a fee suit against a client's estate, the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County, found that plaintiff-lawyer Alex Kleyman had cited 23 nonexistent decisions and misrepresented 83 real ones across 19 filings drafted with Claude and other AI tools. After a sanctions hearing the court imposed about USD 46,500 and referred him to the grievance committee. Primary source: Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. Kaloidis, 2026 WL 2324499 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 4 Aug 2026), trial order (Charlotin database archive PDF) — https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2891/Kleyman_Law_Group_PC_v_Kaloidis_USA_4_August_2026.pdfTue, 04 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/mendel-s-v-faigy-shttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/mendel-s-v-faigy-sA judge of the Family Court of the State of New York, Kings County, reviewing child-support objections on the court's own motion, found eleven of sixteen citations were AI-generated fictions and the rest miscited. The court imposed a USD 1,000 sanction for frivolous conduct but declined a grievance referral because counsel promptly accepted responsibility and completed AI-policy training. Primary source: Mendel S. v. Faigy S., 2026 NY Slip Op 26118 (Fam. Ct. Kings Cty. 31 Jul 2026), published opinion (Charlotin database archive PDF) — https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2893/In_re_Mendels_USA_31_July_2026.pdfFri, 31 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/tov-realty-v-suarezhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/tov-realty-v-suarezThe Connecticut Supreme Court sanctioned a landlord's lawyer whose Lexis-verified briefs acquired fabricated citations when he pasted them into ChatGPT for editing. It ordered six hours of CLE, USD 1,000 each from counsel and the firm to the Connecticut Bar Institute, a compliance report and a courtesy copy to the grievance committee, crediting his candour. Primary source: TOV Realty, LLC v. Suarez, SC21183 (Conn. 31 Jul 2026), sanctions order (Connecticut Judicial Branch) — https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR355/ORD355.3.pdfFri, 31 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/scott-v-illinois-human-rights-commissionhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/scott-v-illinois-human-rights-commissionThe Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed dismissal of a Starbucks employee's discrimination charge and sanctioned her lawyer USD 15,000 under Supreme Court Rule 375 for ten AI-hallucinated statutory quotations and case citations. The court set a USD 1,500 per-citation rate, saying fines must rise until they deter, and referred counsel for discipline. Primary source: Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, 2026 IL App (1st) 251462 (28 Jul 2026), opinion PDF (Illinois Courts) — https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/23d7df84-ed51-48df-8477-3a6872db40d5/Scott%20v.%20IL%20Human%20Rights%20Commn%202026%20IL%20App%20%281st%29%20251462.pdfTue, 28 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/gouldy-v-chiassonhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/gouldy-v-chiassonFlorida's Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed against a self-represented appellant whose brief relied on a nonexistent case and fabricated quotations from real decisions. Treating phantom authority as sanctionable under the appellate rules, the court issued a separate order requiring her to show cause why she should not be barred from filing further self-represented appeals. Primary source: Gouldy v. Chiasson, No. 4D2025-1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 22 Jul 2026), opinion (Florida Courts) — https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2492735/opinion/Opinion_2025-1289.pdfWed, 22 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/couvrette-v-wisnovskyhttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/couvrette-v-wisnovskyOregon's ~$110,000 AI-sanctions case: terminating sanctions for fifteen fake cases and eight fabricated quotations, and why the headline figure is an aggregate.Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticleus-federalus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/dineen-shibata-v-kotchkahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/dineen-shibata-v-kotchkaThe Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed a probate ruling and sanctioned self-represented appellant Jeffrey Kotchka, whose opening brief cited hallucinated and misrepresented authorities produced by generative AI. Holding that self-represented litigants must abide by the same rules, the court awarded appellee Kim Dineen the attorneys' fees and costs caused by the fake citations under A.R.S. §12-349 and ARCAP 25. Primary source: Dineen/Shibata v. Kotchka, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0606 PB (Ariz. Ct. App. 15 Jul 2026), opinion of the Court (Furuya, J.; appeal affirmed, sanctions imposed) — CourtListener opinion text (read) — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10931696/dineenshibata-v-kotchka/Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/mata-v-avianca-the-case-that-started-it-allhttps://safelegalai.com/analysis/mata-v-avianca-the-case-that-started-it-allTwo New York attorneys, six ChatGPT-invented cases, and a $5,000 sanction: the June 2023 ruling that created the legal AI hallucination era.Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTarticleus-federalus-statevendor:openai-chatgpthttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/del-biaggio-v-bansenhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/del-biaggio-v-bansenIn a published opinion in an attorney-fee appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First District, fined attorney Floyd USD 1,500 for misstatements and false quotations attributed to the Gorman and PLCM decisions. The case is catalogued in the Charlotin AI hallucination database; whether the court attributed the false quotations to generative AI should be confirmed from the opinion. Primary source: Del Biaggio v. Bansen, A174647 (Cal. Ct. App. 10 Jul 2026), published opinion (California Courts) — https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A174647.PDFFri, 10 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/leiske-v-kiddhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/leiske-v-kiddIn the Delaware Court of Chancery, plaintiffs' counsel filed an answering brief with fictitious citations, fabricated quotations and hallucinated propositions from a generative-AI tool, then only stripped quotation marks when 'correcting' it. Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will issued a Rule 11(c) rule to show cause against signatory Richard P. Rollo and his firm Richards, Layton & Finger; sanctions are pending. Primary source: Leiske v. Kidd, C.A. No. 2025-0426-CDW (LWW) (Del. Ch. 1 Jul 2026), letter opinion of Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will (Rule to Show Cause) — CourtListener opinion text (read) — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10885202/kevin-leiske-v-robert-gregory-kidd/Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ct-practice-book-4-9-genai-compliancehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ct-practice-book-4-9-genai-complianceA statewide Connecticut court rule effective 23 June 2026 on publication in the Connecticut Law Journal. Anyone who uses generative AI to create or edit a filed document must independently verify every citation, authority and item of evidence, and the filer's signature certifies diligent compliance. Sanctions include nonsuit or default. It is among the first statewide binding verification rules. Primary source: Connecticut Judicial Branch — Original — https://www.jud.ct.gov/legalresources/NewsLog/Post?id=6805Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ri-supreme-court-order-genai-guidelineshttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ri-supreme-court-order-genai-guidelinesAmends Rule 1.1 Comment [6] and adopts interim generative AI guidelines for lawyers and for judicial officers By order of 17 June 2026 the Rhode Island Supreme Court amended Article V, Rule 1.1 Comment [6] so that competence expressly includes keeping abreast of the benefits and risks of developing technology, and adopted advisory interim generative-AI guidelines for Rhode Island lawyers and for judicial officers. The guidelines do not carry the force of law. Primary source: RI Supreme Court — Original — https://www.courts.ri.gov/Miscellaneous%20Orders/Supreme-2026-06_In_reAmendments_Article_V_Rule_1_1_Professional_Conduct.pdfWed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-oh-ethics-guide-artificial-intelligencehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-oh-ethics-guide-artificial-intelligenceIssued and distributed to Ohio lawyers and judicial officers Nonbinding Board staff guidance applying the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct to AI. It covers competence, confidentiality, client communication, independent professional judgment, fees, candor to the tribunal and hallucinated citations, supervision of staff and vendors, and a substantial judicial section on competence, independent decision-making, ex parte risk and confidentiality. Primary source: Ohio Board of Professional Conduct — Original — https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdfTue, 02 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-22-nycrr-part-161-artificial-intelligencehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ny-22-nycrr-part-161-artificial-intelligenceAdded to the Rules of the Chief Administrator by Administrative Order AO/75/26 dated 25 March 2026; effective 1 June 2026 Part 161 applies to all New York Unified Court System courts in civil and criminal cases. Using an AI tool to prepare a paper is permitted and need not be disclosed, but the attorney or party must independently ensure it contains no fabricated cases, statutes or other material; signing certifies that review, and failure may draw sanctions. Primary source: NY Unified Court System — Original — https://www.nycourts.gov/rules/part-161-use-artificial-intelligence-technologyMon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-fl-rule-2-515-generative-ai-amendmenthttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-fl-rule-2-515-generative-ai-amendmentAmendment of rule 2.515(d)(2), rule retitled Signature and Representations to Court Florida moved from bar guidance to a binding filing rule. The Supreme Court amended Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) on 28 May 2026 to address generative AI tools in the representations a signer makes when filing a document, alongside conforming amendments to rules 2.505, 2.520 and 2.525. Primary source: Florida Supreme Court — SC2026-0673 — https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2489374/opinion/Opinion_SC2026-0673.pdfThu, 28 May 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/oba-v-reeveshttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/oba-v-reevesThe 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 already reprimanded or censured by the bars of Texas, Tennessee, and Alabama. A rare multi-state disciplinary chain over one AI incident. Primary source: State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Reeves, 2026 OK 37 (27 May 2026) — CourtListener — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10864894/state-of-oklahoma-ex-rel-oba-v-reeves/Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/gleason-v-marcushttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/gleason-v-marcusFlorida's Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of Christopher Gleason's pro se election complaint and admonished him for apparent AI use: his briefs cited numerous non-existent cases and quoted authorities for propositions found nowhere in them. The court warned that future filings of that nature would not receive favorable treatment and reminded all litigants to verify their filings. Primary source: Gleason v. Marcus, No. 2D2024-2688 (Fla. 2d DCA 13 May 2026), per curiam (Kelly, Rothstein-Youakim, Labrit, JJ.) — CourtListener opinion text (read) — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10857994/gleason-v-marcus-canvassing-board-of-pinellas-county/Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-al-state-bar-formal-opinion-2026-01https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-al-state-bar-formal-opinion-2026-01Initial publication; the source gives a month only (published May 2026), so the day is recorded as the 1st The Alabama State Bar's first formal opinion on AI. It applies ARPC 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3 to generative and agentic AI, requires independent verification of AI citations before filing, prefers enterprise or closed AI systems, bars billing for AI time savings, and supplies a compliance checklist. Primary source: Alabama State Bar — FO 2026-01 — https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdfFri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/ibach-v-stewarthttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/ibach-v-stewartThe Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an appeal after finding plaintiffs' counsel W. Perry Hall filed briefs whose 'widespread and particularly egregious' improper use of AI produced dozens of non-existent and misquoted authorities. It ordered Hall to pay $17,200 plus double appellate costs, barred him from further unsigned filings, and referred him to the Alabama State Bar. Primary source: Ibach v. Stewart, No. SC-2025-0106 (Ala. 24 Apr 2026), opinion (appeal dismissed; sanctions on W. Perry Hall) — CourtListener opinion text (read) — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10847586/laurie-ibach-and-mark-stewart-v-bruce-stewart-individually-as-trustee-of/Fri, 24 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/prososki-v-reganhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/prososki-v-reganThe Nebraska Supreme Court struck an appellant's brief in a divorce appeal after finding 57 of 63 citations defective, including about 20 AI hallucinations and three fabricated cases, dismissed the appeal, and referred counsel W. Gregory Lake to the Counsel for Discipline, holding that fictitious authority is sanctionable under existing candor and competence rules. Primary source: Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38 (20 Mar 2026), Nebraska Judicial Branch (official case page) — https://nebraskajudicial.gov/courts/supreme-court/supreme-court-call/prososki-v-reganFri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/state-v-colemanhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/state-v-colemanAn 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 produced hallucinated quotations. The opinion defends the court's authority to sanction independent of formal bar proceedings. Primary source: State v. Coleman, 2026-Ohio-965 (Ohio Ct. App., 11th Dist., 20 Mar 2026) — CourtListener — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10812807/state-v-coleman/Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ca-state-bar-proposed-ai-rule-amendmentshttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ca-state-bar-proposed-ai-rule-amendmentsProposed amendments to the California Rules of Professional Conduct that would write AI duties directly into the rules: verification of cited authorities, firm-level AI governance policies under Rule 5.1, and instruction of nonlawyer assistants under Rule 5.3. Public comment closed 4 May 2026 and the Board of Trustees considered them in mid May 2026. Adoption requires the California Supreme Court. Primary source: State Bar of California — Public comment draft (COPRAC approved 13 March 2026) — https://www.calbar.ca.gov/public/public-meetings-comment/public-comment/public-comment-archives/2026-public-comment/proposed-amendments-rules-professional-conduct-related-artificial-intelligenceFri, 13 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ok-occa-rule-1-17-generative-aihttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ok-occa-rule-1-17-generative-aiAdopted by order In re: Addition of a New Rule to the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, 2026 OK CR 7 Rule 1.17 requires that where generative AI has been used in drafting any document filed in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the party or counsel must ensure every AI-produced or AI-modified portion has been verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document. Non-compliance may lead to waiver, striking of the document, or contempt. Primary source: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals — Original — https://www.okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/Wed, 18 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/cassata-v-macrinahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/cassata-v-macrinaA New York trial court fined an associate and her supervising partner $1,000 each (to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection) and ordered the firm to pay $8,000 in fees after an opposition brief plagiarized from an AI-generated filing containing nonexistent cases and quotations. The court struck the opposition but declined to refer counsel to bar discipline. Primary source: Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C., 2026 NY Slip Op 26014 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cnty., 27 Jan 2026) — CourtListener — https://storage.courtlistener.com/html/2026/01/27/cassata_v._michael_macrina_architect_p.c..htmlTue, 27 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/deutsche-bank-v-letennierhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/deutsche-bank-v-letennierIn what it called the first New York appellate decision addressing generative-AI sanctions, the Third Department fined defense counsel Joshua Douglass $7,500 and the defendant $2,500 under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 after briefs contained 23 fabricated cases and counsel kept filing fake authorities after being alerted — a state intermediate-appellate precedent-setter. Primary source: Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. LeTennier, 2026 NY Slip Op 00040 (App. Div. 3d Dept., 8 Jan 2026) — CourtListener — https://storage.courtlistener.com/html/2026/01/08/deutsche_bank_natl._trust_co._v._letennier_1.htmlThu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-co-rule-change-2026-02-ai-rpc-amendmentshttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-co-rule-change-2026-02-ai-rpc-amendmentsAmended and adopted en banc, effective immediately Colorado became the first US jurisdiction to amend its lawyer ethics rules specifically for AI. Scope [20A] confirms technology does not diminish a lawyer's responsibilities and that misuse is disciplinable; Comment [9] to Rule 1.1 enumerates the rules AI implicates and preserves the duty of independent judgment. Primary source: Colorado Supreme Court — Rule Change 2026(02) — https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026(02).pdfThu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-nyc-bar-formal-opinion-2025-6https://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-nyc-bar-formal-opinion-2025-6Initial publication Formal Opinion 2025-6 addresses AI note-takers and transcription tools used in client communications. Clients must be notified and consent obtained whenever an AI-empowered system records their calls; lawyers must independently review AI transcripts and summaries, understand the tools' technical limits under Rule 1.1, and manage privilege and discovery risks in stored records. Primary source: NYC Bar — Original — https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2025-6/Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ny-ucs-ai-advisory-committee-2025-reporthttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ny-ucs-ai-advisory-committee-2025-reportThe December 2025 annual report of the New York court system's Advisory Committee on AI and the Courts, containing principles-based ethical considerations and recommendations for judges and judicial staff using AI. It supplements the October 2025 interim policy, addressing impartiality, confidentiality, competence and the need for human judgment in every judicial decision. Primary source: NY UCS AI Advisory Committee — 2025 Annual Report — https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/publications/pdfs/AI%20Annual%20Report%202025.pdfMon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mt-4th-district-rule-3g-generative-aihttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-mt-4th-district-rule-3g-generative-aiRule 3.G added to the district's Rules of Practice Rule 3.G of the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court's Rules of Practice requires any party who used generative AI in preparing a filed document to disclose that use, name the tool, explain how it was used, and certify that AI-assisted portions have been checked for accuracy. A filing without the certification certifies that no AI was used. Primary source: MT 4th Judicial District Court — Rev. October 31, 2025 — https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdfFri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/mezu-v-mezuhttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/mezu-v-mezuMaryland'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 read the authorities he cited — a bar-discipline referral rather than a monetary sanction. Primary source: Mezu v. Mezu (Md. App. Ct., 29 Oct 2025) — CourtListener — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10714052/mezu-v-mezu/Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-md-mezu-v-mezuhttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-md-mezu-v-mezuReported opinion issued Maryland's leading AI-hallucination decision. The Appellate Court of Maryland published Mezu as a warning to the bar, holding that failing to read AI-generated citations before filing can produce briefs citing multiple fictitious cases, and referred the signing attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission. Delegation to a law clerk was no defence. Primary source: Appellate Court of Maryland — Reported opinion — https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdfWed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ut-judicial-council-interim-genai-ruleshttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-ut-judicial-council-interim-genai-rulesInterim rules implemented for court-related work and court-owned devices From 27 October 2025 the Utah Judicial Council operates an allow-list policy for generative AI in court-related work and on court-owned devices. Eight named tools are expressly permitted and any AI tool not expressly permitted is prohibited, giving Utah one of the most restrictive US state judiciary AI postures. Primary source: Utah Judicial Council — Interim rules — https://sites.google.com/utcourts.gov/courts-hr/policy/ai-informationMon, 27 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-il-ardc-implementing-generative-ai-guidehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-il-ardc-implementing-generative-ai-guideInitial publication The Illinois ARDC's practical companion to the Supreme Court's AI Policy. It is expressly nonbinding and subordinate to the Policy, and supplies an explanation of generative AI, a tool-selection and documentation framework, and a Practice Resource Kit with sample notices, firm policies, a client consent form and a terms-of-use checklist. Primary source: Illinois ARDC — Original — https://iardc.org/Files/Implementing-AI-Guide/?page=1Fri, 24 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ny-ucs-interim-ai-policyhttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ny-ucs-interim-ai-policyAn interim policy adopted by the New York State Unified Court System on 10 October 2025 for judges and non-judicial employees. It permits only approved generative AI tools, requires training, forbids entering confidential or non-public information into public tools, and requires that all output be reviewed and verified by the human user, who remains accountable for the result. Primary source: NY Unified Court System — Original — https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/a.i.-policy.pdfFri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/in-re-ra-iowahttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/in-re-ra-iowaAn Iowa appellate court struck a reply brief, imposed a $150 penalty (or an AI-ethics CLE alternative), and referred counsel to the Iowa Attorney Discipline Board after AI-driven research tools produced hallucinated citations. The court noted it had reviewed a database of more than 355 global AI-hallucination cases. Primary source: In the Interest of R.A. (Iowa Ct. App., 1 Oct 2025), No. 24-1629 — CourtListener — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10685230/in-the-interest-of-ra-minor-child/Wed, 01 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-id-oah-alj-ai-guidelineshttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-id-oah-alj-ai-guidelinesSigned by Chief ALJ Bryan Nickels Idaho's administrative judiciary adopted a near-total ban on adjudicative AI use. ALJs may not use AI to draft orders or decisions, to research law, or to summarise evidence and party submissions; limited transcript use is allowed; and ALJs may require parties to certify that AI-drafted content was checked by a human. Primary source: Idaho OAH — Original — https://oah.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/OAH-AI-Guidelines.pdfWed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/cingel-v-ferrerihttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/cingel-v-ferreriThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed against a self-represented appellant in a domestic-relations appeal whose brief cited 23 authorities, 14 of them nonexistent, finding she had likely used generative AI. The court cautioned her about relying on unverified AI output but imposed no sanction, the opposing party having sought none. Primary source: Bethany Cingel v. Gregory Ferreri (Ind. Ct. App., 19 Sep 2025), No. 25A-DC-00500 — CourtListener — https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2025/09/19/bethany_cingel_v._gregory_ferreri.pdfFri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/noland-v-land-of-the-freehttps://safelegalai.com/tracker/noland-v-land-of-the-freeIn the California Court of Appeal, Second District, plaintiff's counsel filed opening and reply briefs in which nearly all quotations were fabricated by generative-AI tools counsel never verified. The court imposed a $10,000 monetary sanction and directed that its opinion be served on the State Bar of California. Primary source: Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., No. B331918 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., 12 Sep 2025) — California Courts (official opinion PDF) — https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B331918.PDFFri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMTincidentus-statehttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ca-rule-of-court-10-430-generative-aihttps://safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/ca-rule-of-court-10-430-generative-aiRule 10.430 of the California Rules of Court, effective 1 September 2025, requires every California court that permits generative AI use by judicial officers or staff to adopt a use policy by 15 December 2025. Policies must address confidentiality, bias, human review of output, and disclosure when public-facing content is fully AI-generated. Standard 10.80 offers a model policy. Primary source: Judicial Council of California — Original — https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430Mon, 01 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMTregulationus-state