Frier v. Hingiss
E.D. Wisconsin · Decided 2023-09-15 · Admonishment · AI tool: Implied.
Sanctions — Week of 2023-09-04
2 AI-hallucination sanctions decided between 2023-09-04 and 2023-09-10 (ISO week 2023-W37). Every ruling below is sourced from the public docket — case name, decided date, outcome, AI tool implicated (when named), and any monetary penalty language pulled verbatim from the ruling.
Week at a glance
- Total rulings
- 2
- With monetary penalty
- 0 of 2
- Courts
- 2
- ISO week
- 2023-W37
Outcomes this week
- Admonishment1
- No Sanction; Formal Judicial Warning1
AI tool implicated
- Implied1
- Unidentified1
This week’s read-across
2 rulings landed on the docket between 2023-09-04 and 2023-09-10. The most common recorded outcome this week was Admonishment (1 of 2). No rulings this week specified a dollar-figure monetary penalty in the docket text — but bar referrals, adverse-costs orders, and case-standing consequences apply regardless.
Implied was the most-implicated AI tool this week (courts rarely require the attorney to name the tool by product name on the record; “Implied” means the ruling described an AI-generated brief without a product name).
The pattern each week is remarkably stable: existence failures (Layer 1) dominate. Attorneys file briefs containing citations that do not exist in any primary source — usually because a general-purpose LLM fabricated the citation and no deterministic pre-filing check caught it. Every ruling below is a preventable filing. See /verify for the pre-filing tool.
All rulings, week of 2023-09-04
Ruggierlo et al. v. Lancaster
E.D. Michigan · Decided 2023-09-11 · No sanction; Formal Judicial Warning · AI tool: Unidentified.
Courts represented this week
Nearby weeks
Get the Sanctions Alert — a new issue every time a ruling lands.
Free double-opt-in newsletter. Case, sanction, fake cites, lesson. No promotional content.
Informational only. Not legal advice. Data derived from public court records; corrections at /contact.