AI hallucinated citations and what they mean for sanctions

In 2023 a federal court in New York sanctioned attorneys in Mata v. Avianca after they filed a brief that cited cases generated by a chatbot. Several of the cases did not exist. Since then, courts across the country have issued similar orders, and many judges now require a certification about the use of AI in filings.

What went wrong in those cases

The pattern is consistent. A model produced citations that looked right, with plausible names, reporters and years. The filer did not open the opinions. When opposing counsel or the court could not find them, the explanations came too late. The sanctions were not for using a tool. They were for filing without checking.

What courts expect

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a reasonable inquiry into the law before signing a filing. Many state rules say the same. A growing number of judges add standing orders about AI. The common expectation is that a human attorney has verified every authority.

A routine that works

• Extract every citation from the draft, cases and statutes.
• Confirm each one resolves to a real opinion or code section.
• Match the name, court and year.
• Check each pin cite against the page range.
• Read each opinion you rely on.
• Keep a record of what you checked.

The first four steps are mechanical. A citation checker performs them in seconds, and it flags anything it cannot find. The last two steps are your judgment and your professional duty.

Using AI safely

A research tool that retrieves real opinions first and checks its own citations changes the risk. You can still be wrong about a holding, but you will not be citing an opinion that does not exist. Try the citation checker on your next draft.