When AI-prepared work goes wrong
-
When AI-prepared work goes wrong Cases and sanctions
An Orange County Appeals Court Sanctions a Supervising Lawyer Who Says He Reviewed a Petition's Arguments but Not Its Citations
In an order of August 2026, the appellate division of Orange County's superior court in California sanctions two lawyers, one of them the supervising attorney, who did not review the citations, over a petition whose table of authorities listed four cases that "appeared to have been fabricated" by generative AI.
-
When AI-prepared work goes wrong Cases and sanctions
California's Office of Tax Appeals Says an Appellant Cited Opinions of the Tribunal That Do Not Exist
In a precedential opinion issued on May 15, 2026, California's Office of Tax Appeals says an appellant in a sales tax case cited opinions of the tribunal that do not exist, and that parties and representatives appearing before it "are expected to know about the risk of AI hallucination."
-
When AI-prepared work goes wrong Cases and sanctions
The Sixth Circuit Says Citing Real Cases Did Not Absolve a Lawyer Whose AI-Drafted Briefs Carried False Quotations
In an opinion of April 3, 2026, recommended for publication, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said that an appointed lawyer, by the lawyer's own admission, used artificial intelligence to draft two briefs and filed them without properly verifying the cited authorities, and ordered that the lawyer not be paid under the Criminal Justice Act for the time spent on the appeal.
-
When AI-prepared work goes wrong Cases and sanctions
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Struck Off a Lawyer Who Filed Misleading AI-Generated Citations and Repeated the Errors After They Were Pointed Out
In a judgment dated August 25, 2026, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that a registered foreign lawyer had filed misleading quotations and citations "in consequence of" his use of generative AI, and had sent further erroneous ones after the errors were pointed out. It ordered him struck off, on this and a separate allegation. The decision is subject to appeal to the High Court, and the order remains in force meanwhile.
-
When AI-prepared work goes wrong Liability and insurance
The SRA Warns That Solicitors and Regulated Individuals Who Use AI Remain Accountable for Their Work, Regardless of How It Was Prepared
In a warning notice published on August 17, 2026, the Solicitors Regulation Authority said that solicitors and regulated individuals who use AI in delivering legal services "remain accountable for their work and outputs, regardless of how that work has been prepared," named two areas of particular concern, false or incorrect information in court and other documents, including citations, and client confidentiality, and said that those who do not have proper regard to the notice are at risk of disciplinary action.
-
When AI-prepared work goes wrong Liability and insurance
Remote to Insureds' Use of AI: A Lloyd's Market Association Survey of Underwriters on AI Loss Scenarios, January 2026
In January 2026, the Lloyd's Market Association released a survey of its members' opinions on AI loss scenarios. Of the four it reports on, professional indemnity, "AI produces erroneous advice/service to clients, causing a loss," scored highest for overall impact.
-
When AI-prepared work goes wrong Liability and insurance
Whether They Intend to Cover: A Lloyd's Market Association Report on AI and Errors and Omissions Insurance, September 2025
A report of a committee of the Lloyd's Market Association, published on September 18, 2025, says that a professional who relies on generative AI is "still expected to adhere to the professional standards" of their regulator, and that underwriters "should consider whether they intend to cover losses resulting from reliance on inaccurate GenAI outputs by professional services firms."
