<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>SafeLegalAI — watch: OpenAI ChatGPT</title><description>Court incidents, official rule revisions and analysis naming OpenAI ChatGPT, 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.</description><link>https://safelegalai.com</link><language>en-gb</language><copyright>CC BY 4.0 — SafeLegalAI, published by Cognesio LLP</copyright><item><title>Research: AI chat logs, note-takers and privilege: what courts have compelled, protected and excluded, 2024 to 2026</title><link>https://safelegalai.com/analysis/ai-chat-logs-as-evidence-in-court</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://safelegalai.com/analysis/ai-chat-logs-as-evidence-in-court</guid><description>17 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.</description><pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category>article</category><category>uk</category><category>us-federal</category><category>us-state</category><category>eu</category><category>vendor:openai-chatgpt</category><category>vendor:anthropic-claude</category><category>vendor:microsoft-copilot</category></item><item><title>Research: The sanctions ledger: what courts ordered over AI-fabricated authority, 2023 to 2026, priced</title><link>https://safelegalai.com/analysis/ai-sanctions-ledger-2023-2026</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://safelegalai.com/analysis/ai-sanctions-ledger-2023-2026</guid><description>150 tracker rows, 45 with a stated figure: USD 371,542 across 34 US orders, median USD 5,000; 48 regulator referrals, 5 verified dispositions.</description><pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category>article</category><category>international</category><category>vendor:openai-chatgpt</category><category>vendor:anthropic-claude</category></item><item><title>Research: Consumer AI legal services and self-represented litigants: the services, the court record and the regulators</title><link>https://safelegalai.com/analysis/consumer-ai-legal-chatbots-on-the-record</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://safelegalai.com/analysis/consumer-ai-legal-chatbots-on-the-record</guid><description>12 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.</description><pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category>article</category><category>uk</category><category>us-federal</category><category>us-state</category><category>international</category><category>vendor:openai-chatgpt</category></item><item><title>Research: The bench&apos;s record: how courts and adjudicators use AI, what binds them, and where it went wrong</title><link>https://safelegalai.com/analysis/judges-and-courts-using-ai-record</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://safelegalai.com/analysis/judges-and-courts-using-ai-record</guid><description>106 instruments on judges&apos; AI use and 11 decisions where an adjudicator relied on fabricated authority: 10 countries bind judges, 22 guide, 6 are drafting.</description><pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category>article</category><category>international</category><category>vendor:openai-chatgpt</category></item><item><title>Research: Legal AI incident report, Q3 2026 to 3 September: 54 incidents, 33 in US courts, 20 regulator outcomes</title><link>https://safelegalai.com/analysis/legal-ai-incident-report-q3-2026</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://safelegalai.com/analysis/legal-ai-incident-report-q3-2026</guid><description>1 July to 3 September 2026: 54 tracker incidents in 11 jurisdictions, USD 132,888 in stated US penalties, 20 rows with a regulator referral or disposition.</description><pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category>article</category><category>international</category><category>vendor:openai-chatgpt</category></item><item><title>Analysis: Harber v HMRC: the first reported UK case of AI-invented case law</title><link>https://safelegalai.com/analysis/harber-v-hmrc</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://safelegalai.com/analysis/harber-v-hmrc</guid><description>The first reported UK case of AI-invented case law: a litigant cited nine ChatGPT-fabricated decisions to the Tax Tribunal, which found them fake.</description><pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category>article</category><category>uk</category><category>vendor:openai-chatgpt</category></item><item><title>Research: How often does legal AI hallucinate? The measurement register, September 2026</title><link>https://safelegalai.com/analysis/how-often-legal-ai-hallucinates-evidence</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://safelegalai.com/analysis/how-often-legal-ai-hallucinates-evidence</guid><description>Every published measurement of legal-AI error on one schema, set against the vendor claims: 17% to 33% for research tools, 43% to 88% for general models.</description><pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category>article</category><category>international</category><category>vendor:lexis-ai</category><category>vendor:harvey</category><category>vendor:openai-chatgpt</category></item><item><title>Analysis: Ko v. Li: how a ChatGPT factum became a criminal-contempt referral in Ontario</title><link>https://safelegalai.com/analysis/ko-v-li</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://safelegalai.com/analysis/ko-v-li</guid><description>An Ontario lawyer filed a ChatGPT-fabricated factum, then lied about writing it — and drew a criminal-contempt referral to the Attorney General.</description><pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category>article</category><category>canada</category><category>vendor:openai-chatgpt</category></item><item><title>Analysis: Mata v Avianca: the case that started it all</title><link>https://safelegalai.com/analysis/mata-v-avianca-the-case-that-started-it-all</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://safelegalai.com/analysis/mata-v-avianca-the-case-that-started-it-all</guid><description>Two New York attorneys, six ChatGPT-invented cases, and a $5,000 sanction: the June 2023 ruling that created the legal AI hallucination era.</description><pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><category>article</category><category>us-federal</category><category>us-state</category><category>vendor:openai-chatgpt</category></item></channel></rss>