AI Evidence, Litigation & Professional Legal Ethics

US Attorney Fictitious Citation Case

Attorneys submitted court filings containing fictitious judicial decisions and citations fabricated by generative artificial intelligence, and continued to provide inaccurate materials after being challenged. The court imposed sanctions accordingly.

Sanctions order

• The court imposed sanctions on the responsible attorneys and law firm, ordering them to notify affected judges and parties.
• The order emphasized that practitioners remain responsible for all submitted filings.

Australia AI Character Reference Case

In sentencing proceedings, the court examined a character reference that appeared to have been generated or rewritten with a large language model. Because its preparation could not be established, the court gave it little weight and directed counsel to enquire whether character references were prepared with a large language model or automated translation.

Sentencing Judgment

• The court stated that character references used in sentencing should not be generated with the assistance of large language models and warned that automated translation may obscure linguistic nuances relevant to weight.
• Counsel should make appropriate enquiries and be able to tell the court whether a reference was written or rewritten with a large language model or automated translation program.

Colombia Judicial Use of ChatGPT Case

A lower-court judge included ChatGPT responses in the reasoning of a judgment. The Constitutional Court found that the judge had independently decided the matter prior to querying the model, upholding the validity of the proceedings while establishing standards for judicial AI use including transparency, verification, privacy, and human control.

Constitutional Court Judgment

• The Court held that generative AI did not displace the judge's independent decision-making in the specific proceeding.
• The Court observed deficiencies in transparency and accountability regarding the manner in which the tool was used.

South Africa Hallucinated Citations and Attorney Liability Case

A legal team submitted appellate filings containing non-existent or inaccurate case citations. The court found that the team failed to conduct basic verification, ordered the law firm to pay the costs of additional hearings, and referred the judgment to the Legal Practice Council.

High Court Judgment

• The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
• The court ordered the law firm to personally bear the costs arising from the two additional hearings.

India ANI v. OpenAI Case

Indian news agency ANI alleged that OpenAI used its news content without authorization to train AI models, raising concerns over model outputs and false attribution. The High Court of Delhi concluded hearings on the interim injunction application, with the substantive decision pending.

Arguments Concluded on Interim Injunction Application; Judgment Reserved

• The court concluded oral submissions from the parties and court-appointed assistants regarding the interim injunction application.
• On March 27, 2026, the court reserved its judgment.

Model & Platform Governance

Review admission, risk tiering, content safety, monitoring, audit and accountability for models, algorithms and platforms.

AI Contracts & Disputes

Support procurement, development, licensing, investment and disputes involving technology, data and outputs.