Are courts sanctioning lawyers for AI misuse?

A Pattern That Has Repeated Across Jurisdictions

Since AI chatbots became widely accessible, courts in multiple jurisdictions have encountered a recurring problem: attorneys submitting filings that rely on AI-generated content, most notably case citations, that turn out to be fabricated. What started as an isolated, widely reported incident has since been echoed in other courts, prompting a broader institutional response from the judiciary about how to handle AI use in litigation.

What Triggers Sanctions

The pattern behind most reported sanctions has been fairly consistent: an attorney uses a general-purpose AI chatbot for legal research or drafting assistance, the tool produces citations to cases — complete with plausible case names and quoted language — that do not actually exist, and the attorney includes this content in a filing without independently verifying it against a real legal database. The fabrication is typically discovered when opposing counsel or the court itself cannot locate the cited authority. Courts have generally viewed the failure to verify, rather than the mere use of AI itself, as the sanctionable conduct — reflecting the longstanding duty attorneys have to ensure candor and accuracy in what they submit to a tribunal.

Consequences Attorneys Have Faced

Reported consequences in these cases have included monetary sanctions imposed directly by the court, orders requiring the attorney to notify their own client about what occurred, and significant reputational harm given the substantial media attention these incidents have received. Beyond the immediate case, attorneys involved in these incidents have also faced scrutiny that can extend to bar disciplinary review, separate from the sanction imposed by the court itself.

How Courts Have Responded Institutionally

Beyond addressing individual incidents, the broader pattern of AI-related filing errors has prompted a number of courts to adopt standing orders or local rules specifically addressing AI use. These vary in approach — some require attorneys to disclose whenever AI tools were used in preparing a filing, others require a certification that any legal citations have been independently verified, and some address both. This is a rapidly evolving area, and the specific requirements differ meaningfully from one court to another, making it important for attorneys practicing across multiple jurisdictions to check the specific local rules in each.

Distinguishing Sanctions From Malpractice

It’s worth noting that a court sanction is legally distinct from a legal malpractice claim. A sanction is a penalty a court imposes directly for improper conduct during litigation, while malpractice is a separate civil claim that a client would need to bring, showing that the attorney’s negligence caused them actual harm. An incident that results in sanctions could, depending on the facts, also expose the attorney to a subsequent malpractice claim, but the two are evaluated under different standards.

Bottom Line

Yes, courts in multiple jurisdictions have sanctioned attorneys for submitting filings with unverified, AI-fabricated content, most commonly fake case citations, and this recurring pattern has led many courts to adopt new rules requiring disclosure or verification of AI-assisted filings.

Go deeper

• How do courts currently handle ai generated evidence in legal proceedings?