This is a research prototype. The data and analyses are preliminary and not yet validated — we'd welcome your .
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sanctioned two attorneys for submitting appellate briefs containing over two dozen fake case citations and factual misrepresentations. While the court questioned whether generative AI was used to produce the filings, the attorneys failed to provide a direct answer. The court imposed financial sanctions, including reimbursement of legal fees and punitive fines, emphasizing that lawyers are responsible for the accuracy of their submissions regardless of the tools used.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sanctioned attorneys Van Irion and Russ Egli after reportedly finding more than two dozen fake citations and alleged factual misrepresentations in appellate briefs in Whiting v. City of Athens. The court asked whether generative AI had been used, but the attorneys reportedly did not answer that question. Public reporting described the filings as bearing hallmarks of AI hallucinations.
Domain classification, causal taxonomy, severity scores, and national security assessments were LLM-classified and may contain errors.
AI systems that inadvertently generate or spread incorrect or deceptive information, which can lead to inaccurate beliefs in users and undermine their autonomy. Humans that make decisions based on false beliefs can experience physical, emotional or material harms
Also classified as
The attorneys overrelied on the AI system's outputs to draft their legal briefs without performing necessary verification or cite-checking.
The AI system generated discrete false information in the form of over 24 fabricated legal citations, which were then submitted to a federal court.
AI system
Due to a decision or action made by an AI system
Unintentional
Due to an unexpected outcome from pursuing a goal
Post-deployment
Occurring after the AI model has been trained and deployed
The incident was initiated by an AI system generating unintended hallucinations (fake citations) during post-deployment use by the attorneys.
Added categories peak at 2: Minor (Epistemic Harm, Direct)
Two attorneys were sanctioned by a federal court for submitting briefs containing AI-generated fake citations. While this represents a minor disruption to judicial processes (sovereignty and government functions) that was resolved through standard court procedures, it carries negligible national security implications.
The AI system was used to assist the attorneys in research and brief writing, augmenting their capabilities but requiring human oversight and verification to ensure accuracy.
Limited Risk: The system described is a generative AI platform used for text generation and drafting, which falls under Limited Risk (Level 3) as it involves AI-generated content that requires transparency and human verification.
The AI system was used by the attorneys to assist in drafting legal briefs and conducting legal research, which directly aligns with the functions of a Writing Assistant and Technical Text Generation.
The reports provide precise details of the court case, the specific sanctions (15,000 dollars each, double costs), and the nature of the fake citations. While the attorneys did not explicitly admit to using AI, the court and reports note the filings bore the clear hallmarks of AI hallucinations, and the legal analysis of the incident is highly documented.
The attorneys might have fabricated the citations manually or through some other non-AI means, though this is highly unlikely given the characteristic nature of the hallucinations.
Technology
Generative AI Hallucinations
AI platforms fabricated fake case citations and misrepresented the law.
Human Factors
Failure to Vet AI Output
Attorneys failed to check the accuracy of the AI-generated citations.
Defiance of Court Inquiry
Attorneys refused to answer the court's questions about AI use.
Lack of Candor before Court
Attorneys had prior discipline for lack of candor before a tribunal.
Process and Methods
Flawed Cite-Checking Process
Attorneys lacked a robust process to verify the authenticity of citations.
Deficient Brief Preparation
Attorneys submitted briefs with over two dozen fake citations.
Management
Inadequate Supervision
Law firm partners failed to supervise the integration of AI tools.
Regulatory Environment
No Local AI Disclosure Rules
The circuit lacked local rules requiring proactive disclosure of AI use.
AI system involved
Identified by automated extraction; can differ from the alleged developers above.
