This is a research prototype. The data and analyses are preliminary and not yet validated — we'd welcome your .
A self-represented litigant in Arizona was sanctioned and had his appeal rejected after submitting a legal brief containing fabricated case citations generated by artificial intelligence.
Self-represented appellant Jeffrey Kotchka reportedly used purported AI tools to prepare an opening brief in a probate dispute involving his late mother's estate. The Arizona Court of Appeals found six of its eight citations deficient, including two nonexistent cases, and said Kotchka had made no effort to verify them. The court affirmed the appointment of his sister, Kim Dineen, as personal representative, ordering Kotchka to pay her attorney fees attributable to addressing the false citations.
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 litigant relied on generative AI to draft a legal brief in a court proceeding without verifying the citations, demonstrating unsafe use of AI in a critical situation.
The AI system generated false and misleading information in the form of fabricated legal citations, which were then submitted to a court of law.
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 caused by the AI system hallucinating non-existent case citations, which was an unexpected and unintentional outcome of using the tool to draft a brief.
Added categories peak at 2: Minor (Epistemic Harm, Direct)
An Arizona litigant was sanctioned after using generative AI to draft a legal brief containing fabricated case citations. While representing a minor challenge for local state courts, the incident was resolved through standard judicial procedures and poses negligible threats to national security.
The AI system was used as a writing assistant to draft a legal brief, augmenting the human user's capabilities but requiring human oversight and verification which was neglected.
Limited Risk: The system used was a general-purpose generative AI tool used for text generation, which falls under the category of AI systems that generate content and require transparency, but does not fall into high-risk categories like critical infrastructure or law enforcement.
The AI was used by a self-represented litigant to draft a legal brief, which is a writing assistant task involving technical text generation.
The report provides clear, unambiguous details about the court case, the specific citations that were fabricated, the parties involved, and the legal sanctions imposed. There are no conflicting accounts or major gaps in the narrative.
None
Technology
Generative AI Hallucinations
AI generated fake, non-existent case citations in the legal brief.
Lack of Built-in Verification
The AI tool did not verify the accuracy of the cited legal sources.
Data Inputs
Inaccurate Training Data
Model associated wrong rules and facts with actual case names.
Human Factors
Failure to Verify Citations
Litigant did not independently verify any of the AI-generated citations.
Ignoring Court Guidelines
Litigant did not read the court's guide on using AI tools.
No Professional Consultation
Litigant did not consult a legal professional before filing.
Process and Methods
Lack of Verification Process
No process was used to cross-reference citations with public research tools.
Management
Poor Case Management
Litigant failed to manage the accuracy and quality of his own filing.
Regulatory Environment
Lack of Pre-filing AI Checks
No automated court system blocked the submission of fake citations.
AI system involved
Identified by automated extraction; can differ from the alleged developers above.
