Updated on: Monday, April 14, 2025
Updated on: Wednesday, February 12, 2025
As litigants increasingly adopt generative artificial intelligence (gen AI) tools, courts have responded by issuing standing orders, local rules, and opinions addressing how AI may be used in litigation. Notably, courts are willing to impose sanctions on parties who misuse AI.
In United States v. Hayes, 24-CR-280 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2025), the Court found that the defense attorney submitted a fictitious or non-existent case and quotation in his written motion. "The citation has all the markings of a hallucinated case created by generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT and Google Bard that have been widely discussed by courts grappling with fictitious legal citations and reported by national news outlets."
The court ordered counsel to pay $1,500, and also ordered the Clerk to serve a copy of the order on the California and D.C. Bars, and "on all the district judges and magistrate judges in this district."
The attorney adamantly denies the use of AI in his research and motion drafting practice. He has filed a motion for reconsideration of the order/monetary sanction. On April 9, 2025, the court denied the motion.
The case is the latest example of judges weighing sanctions for lawyers who have filed court documents containing citations that appear fabricated by AI. In an early instance, a judge last year imposed sanctions on two New York lawyers who submitted a brief that included six fictitious cases.