A U.S. District Judge in the District of New Jersey has withdrawn an opinion after a letter for one of the attorneys pointed out the opinion contained "a series of errors," including nonexistent fake quotes and misstated case outcomes attributed to the parties (article available here).
The judge withdrew the opinion July 23, 2025, saying in a docket entry the opinion and an order had been entered in error.
The letter was written by a lawyer who had sought dismissal of a shareholder lawsuit filed against his client. The lawyer said the company was not seeking reconsideration of the court's denial of the motion, but he did want to point out the problems.
"While defendants do not seek reconsideration of the opinion … we wish to bring to the court's attention a series of errors in the opinion — including three instances in which the outcomes of the cases cited in the opinion were misstated (i.e., the motions to dismiss were granted, not denied) and numerous instances in which quotes were mistakenly attributed to decisions that do not contain such quotes — so that the court may consider whether amendment or any other action should be taken," the letter states.
While nothing in the letter to the court or the court's docket order withdrawing the opinion on Wednesday suggested the errors were the result of the use of generative artificial intelligence, nonexistent case law in legal filings is becoming a growing headache for courts across the country, with many judges warning and sanctioning lawyers in criminal and civil cases.
Last week, a New York federal judge ordered an attorney to explain himself after he was accused of possibly using AI to write his response to an order she issued concerning his use of AI to write an earlier brief that cited nonexistent cases.
This is a rare instance in which a court was called out for fundamental drafting errors—the kind more commonly identified by courts in attorneys’ pleadings rather than in judicial opinions themselves.