What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Suggested the O&J should include provisions for changing/revising/removing a previously drafted will; court noted no one, including a guardian, can execute a will for another and such provisions are not part of guardianship orders. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Claimed an attorney drafter must obtain medical professional input when drafting a new will; court stated no such requirement exists. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Asserted that an Article 81 guardian is automatically in a position of undue influence over the ward; court rejected any automatic presumption. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Argued undue influence was 'abundantly clear' merely because the guardian was named executor/beneficiary; court explained such facts alone do not establish undue influence. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Implied that because the drafting attorney also represented the guardian in the Article 81 case, the decedent could not have been of sound mind; court held this is a question of fact, not a per se rule. || Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief dated Oct. 11, 2023 cited five of six cases that the court found were erroneous or nonexistent after a simple Lexis/Westlaw check. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Reply brief asserted material factual statements about case law and court holdings that the court determined were false. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Argued that appointment of an Article 81 guardian meant the decedent lacked testamentary capacity as a matter of law; court held this is an incorrect reading of the law. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Argued that a guardian must obtain Supreme Court authority to allow the ward to execute a will; court held no such requirement exists and the O&J did not prohibit the decedent from executing or revoking a will.

Details

AI UseOsborne’s attorney, under time pressure, submitted reply papers heavily relying on a website or tool that used generative AI. The submission included fabricated judicial authorities presented without independent verification. No admission by the lawyer was recorded, but the court independently verified the error.Hallucination DetailsOf the six cases cited in the October 11, 2023 reply, five were found to be either fictional or materially erroneous. A basic Lexis search would have revealed the fabrications instantly. The court drew explicit comparisons to the Mata v. Avianca fiasco.Ruling/SanctionThe court struck the offending reply papers from the record and ordered the attorney to appear for a sanctions hearing under New York’s Rule 130-1.1. Potential sanctions include financial penalties or other disciplinary measures.Key Judicial ReasoningThe court emphasized that while the use of AI tools is not forbidden per se, attorneys must personally verify all outputs. The violation was deemed "frivolous conduct" because the lawyer falsely certified the validity of the filing. The judge stressed the dangers to the judicial system from fictional citations: wasting time, misleading parties, degrading trust in courts, and harming the profession’s reputation.

Sanction teardown · CC New York, USA · 2024-01-11

Matter of Samuel

What happened

In CC New York, 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:

Misrepresented (Legal Norm)

Suggested the O&J should include provisions for changing/revising/removing a previously drafted will; court noted no one, including a guardian, can execute a will for another and such provisions are not part of guardianship orders.
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)

Claimed an attorney drafter must obtain medical professional input when drafting a new will; court stated no such requirement exists.
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)

Asserted that an Article 81 guardian is automatically in a position of undue influence over the ward; court rejected any automatic presumption.
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)

Argued undue influence was 'abundantly clear' merely because the guardian was named executor/beneficiary; court explained such facts alone do not establish undue influence.
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)

Implied that because the drafting attorney also represented the guardian in the Article 81 case, the decedent could not have been of sound mind; court held this is a question of fact, not a per se rule.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Reply brief dated Oct. 11, 2023 cited five of six cases that the court found were erroneous or nonexistent after a simple Lexis/Westlaw check.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Reply brief asserted material factual statements about case law and court holdings that the court determined were false.
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)

Argued that appointment of an Article 81 guardian meant the decedent lacked testamentary capacity as a matter of law; court held this is an incorrect reading of the law.
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)

Argued that a guardian must obtain Supreme Court authority to allow the ward to execute a will; court held no such requirement exists and the O&J did not prohibit the decedent from executing or revoking a will.

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

Striking of Filing + Sanctions Hearing Scheduled

Additional detail

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/233/Matter_of_Samuel_NY_Court_January_11_2024.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checker Back to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49 Sanctions-motion template