Attorneys are citing to cases which don't exist

It's not only becoming common for law firms to submit briefs to courts which they drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence software, courts are catching them in the act and finding that some of the caselaw cited to in these briefs is completely fictional. AI 'hallucinations' are instances where AI software generates fallacious information in response to a question.

In January, the Second Circuit issued a per curiam decision, Op., Park v. Kim, No. 22-2057 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2024), ECF No. 178-1, in which the court found that:

The attorney who filed the brief was referred to the Court's Grievance Panel. The Court cited the 5th Circuit's amendment to its rules which requires that attorneys certify that no generative artificial intelligence was used for a filing, or that at least that the filing was reviewed for accuracy by a human.

In May 2023, Judge Castel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued an Order to Show Cause why the plaintiff's counsel should not be sanctioned pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and the Court's inherent authority for submitting an affirmation in opposition to a motion to dismiss which included citations to six "bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations." Order to Show Cause at 1, Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2023), ECF No. 31. The brief used citations to reporters which actually refer to other cases:

Id. at 2.

Not only did the plaintiff's affirmation refer to Varghese v China South Airlines Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019), and other cases which are completely made up, but when the court issued an order asking that plaintiff's counsel submit copies of these cases (Order, Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2023), ECF No. 25) the counsel in turn filed an affidavit submitting AI generated copies of the imaginary cases! Affidavit, Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2023), ECF No. 29.

A copy of Varghese was filed on PACER, but it's something that AI simply invented:

PACER doesn't lie!

At a subsequent hearing, Judge Castel excoriated the plaintiff's attorney for submitting the fictitious case:

Hr'g Tr. at 15:17-17:6, Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2023), ECF No. 52. So the case that ChatGPT invented was not even one which had an internal logic of its own.

The court sanctioned the plaintiff's attorney under Rule 11, fined him $5,000 and ordered him to send a letter to each judge listed as the author of the false cases the affirmation cited to. Mata has been dismissed for being untimely under an international convention that covered a claim for an injury suffered by the plaintiff during an international flight.