What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a nonexistent TCCA case; the pinpoint actually jumps into In re Rodriguez, a Dallas mandamus in a divorce case. Court agreed that the cited case does not exist as presented. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a nonexistent 1979 TCCA opinion; the citation corresponds to a Missouri appellate real estate case. Court noted the citation led to an irrelevant case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a nonexistent TCCA opinion; the citation maps to a Missouri divorce case, and the only real Ex parte Martinez (330 S.W.3d 891) concerns ineffective assistance, not the proposition asserted.

Details

AI UseThe Court noted that the appellant's argument section appeared to have been drafted by AI based on telltale errors (nonexistent cases, jump-cites into wrong jurisdictions, illogical structure). A recent Texas CLE on AI usage was cited by the Court to explain the pattern.Hallucination DetailsThree fake cases cited. Brief also contained no citations to the record and was devoid of clear argumentation on the presented issues.Ruling/SanctionThe Court declined to issue a show cause order or to refer counsel to the State Bar of Texas, despite noting similarities to Mata v. Avianca. However, it affirmed the trial court’s denial of habeas relief due to inadequate briefing, and explicitly warned about the dangers of using AI-generated content in legal submissions without human verification.Key Judicial ReasoningThe Court held that even if AI contributed to the preparation of filings, attorneys must ensure accuracy, logical structure, and compliance with citation rules. Failure to meet these standards precludes appellate review under Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Courts are not obligated to "make an appellant’s arguments for him," especially where brief defects are gross.

Sanction teardown · Texas CA, USA · 2023-07-19

Ex Parte Lee

What happened

In Texas CA, USA, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

Fabricated (Case Law)

Appellant cited a nonexistent TCCA case; the pinpoint actually jumps into In re Rodriguez, a Dallas mandamus in a divorce case. Court agreed that the cited case does not exist as presented.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Appellant cited a nonexistent 1979 TCCA opinion; the citation corresponds to a Missouri appellate real estate case. Court noted the citation led to an irrelevant case.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Appellant cited a nonexistent TCCA opinion; the citation maps to a Missouri divorce case, and the only real Ex parte Martinez (330 S.W.3d 891) concerns ineffective assistance, not the proposition asserted.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

No sanction; Judicial Warning; Affirmance of Trial Court Decision

Additional detail

AI UseThe Court noted that the appellant's argument section appeared to have been drafted by AI based on telltale errors (nonexistent cases, jump-cites into wrong jurisdictions, illogical structure). A recent Texas CLE on AI usage was cited by the Court to explain the pattern.Hallucination DetailsThree fake cases cited. Brief also contained no citations to the record and was devoid of clear argumentation on the presented issues.Ruling/SanctionThe Court declined to issue a show cause order or to refer counsel to the State Bar of Texas, despite noting similarities to Mata v. Avianca. However, it affirmed the trial court’s denial of habeas relief due to inadequate briefing, and explicitly warned about the dangers of using AI-generated content in legal submissions without human verification.Key Judicial ReasoningThe Court held that even if AI contributed to the preparation of filings, attorneys must ensure accuracy, logical structure, and compliance with citation rules. Failure to meet these standards precludes appellate review under Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Courts are not obligated to "make an appellant’s arguments for him," especially where brief defects are gross.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/250/Ex_parte_Lee_Texas_CA_July_19_2023.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).