Raw LLM Responses

Johnson v. Dunn (N.D. Alabama, July 2025): A lawyer used ChatGPT to generate legal citations, which turned out to be entirely fabricated. The court issued a public reprimand, disqualified the lawyer from the case, and referred the matter to the Bar. In re Marla C. Martin (N.D. Illinois Bankruptcy, July 2025): The lawyer received a $5,500 sanction and was required to complete mandatory AI education after citing fake cases generated by ChatGPT. The court emphasized that ignorance of AI hallucinations is no longer a viable excuse for lawyers. ByoPlanet International v. Johansson and Gilstrap (S.D. Florida, July 2025): A law firm and paralegal used ChatGPT to draft documents, resulting in multiple fabricated citations. The attorneys’ attempts to blame time pressure and deflect responsibility were rejected by the judge, who dismissed the case and referred the attorney to the state bar. Woodrow Jackson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company (M.D. Georgia, July 2025): A lawyer cited nine non-existent cases generated by AI, resulting in a $1,000 monetary sanction, a requirement to attend a course on AI ethics, and reimbursement of opponent’s legal fees. Latham & Watkins (May 2025): In a copyright suit, a lawyer at this major firm submitted a filing with made-up citations created by AI, forcing the firm to explain itself to the court. Mike Lindell (MyPillow) Case (July 2025): Lawyers for Mike Lindell were fined thousands of dollars for a filing riddled with AI-generated, hallucinated mistakes. The episode received extensive media coverage, highlighting the growing risks of unvalidated AI use in legal work. The list is getting longer by the day. Only a matter of time before someone is disbarred.