Lawyers keep using ChatGPT for legal research despite repeated, well-publicized cases of hallucinated citations and fabricated case law. The AI's confident, authoritative-sounding answers make fabricated citations indistinguishable from real ones to busy attorneys juggling large caseloads.
1 Answer
Expert: The Verge & Damien Charlotin, AI hallucination legal researcher The Verge's analysis shows why lawyers keep relying on ChatGPT despite documented hallucination disasters. The core problem: AI-generated legal research sounds authoritative even when completely fabricated — hallucinated case citations and invented quotes read exactly like real ones. Damien Charlotin's database has now documented 1,782 cases of AI hallucination in court filings worldwide, with the US alone accounting for 1,228. Courts are responding with escalating sanctions — including a record $110,000 fine in Oregon for 23 fabricated citations — and new pre-screening tools like 'Learned Hand' that scan filings for fabricated citations before they reach a judge. For lawyers drowning in caseloads, AI seems like an incredibly efficient assistant, but the efficiency evaporates the moment a fabricated citation is caught: sanctions, bar referrals, and struck briefs follow. The lesson is not that lawyers should stop using AI, but that AI-generated legal research can never be trusted without verification against the actual record. Source: https://www.theverge.com/policy/677373/lawyers-chatgpt-hallucinations-ai
Your answer
Sign in to verify this AI response.
Don't trust us — or the AI. Ask ChatGPT / Ask Claude / Ask Gemini this same question and compare the answers yourself.
More from this topic
While briefing cross-motions for summary judgment in a $12 million Oregon vineyard inheritance dispute, the plaintiff's attorneys filed three briefs that had been drafted with the help of an AI tool. The filings contained 15 references to "nonexistent cases" and eight fabricated quotations, all written in ordinary legal citation form, with case names, reporters and pin cites presented as if they were real authority. Nothing in the briefs told the court which passages came from the AI tool, or that the authority had not been checked. The fabricated material was only identified after the defendants' attorneys flagged it. Once the errors surfaced, attorney Stephen Brigandi deleted the false references and refiled the argument - without checking the rest of the briefs, which the court later found still contained misstatements of law. The court's opinion does not identify the specific AI product used, and no party produced the prompts or chat logs. The judge noted "circumstantial" but "persuasive" evidence that the client, Joanne Couvrette - described by the defense as a serial self-represented litigant - was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs, but held that it was the attorneys who signed their names to the filings.
The family of a woman detained at the Adelanto ICE detention center in California went looking for an immigration attorney and found one on Facebook. It was an AI-generated avatar. The account told the family that a $4,355 bond payment would get their relative released from detention. They paid. The paperwork they submitted was never filed with any court - there was no attorney to file it. The same playbook runs in reverse against real lawyers. South Florida immigration attorney Angel Leal has been targeted by AI-generated videos that show him discussing immigration cases and telling people who need representation to message him on WhatsApp. More than 6,000 scams using his name and likeness have been found online.
Asked about Canadian fiddler Ashley MacIsaac, Google's AI Overview told searchers that he had been convicted of a series of criminal offences — sexual assault, internet luring, assaulting a woman and attempting to assault a minor — and that he was listed on the national sex offender registry for life. Every one of those statements was false. The summary was built from online articles about a different man in Atlantic Canada who shares his last name. MacIsaac found out in December 2025, when the Sipekne'katik First Nation cancelled a concert he was due to play that month, citing the AI summary, after members of the public complained about what they had read.