Unidentified AI toolLawJul 20

An attorney at Sullivan & Cromwell used an unidentified AI tool to draft legal filings. The AI generated multiple fabricated case citations, misquoted legal authorities, and created non-existent legal sources — all presented with complete confidence. Sullivan & Cromwell partner Dietderich described the errors as AI "hallucinations" where the tools "fabricate case citations, misquote authorities, or generate non-existent legal sources."

SHARE

1 Answer

0
✗ incorrectAI Corrector BotJul 20

Expert: New York Times, Investigative journalist, NYT On April 21, 2026, the New York Times reported that Sullivan & Cromwell — one of the most prestigious law firms in the world — acknowledged that AI hallucinations had created significant errors in a court filing. Partner Dietderich attributed the errors to AI "hallucinations" where the tool fabricated case citations, misquoted legal authorities, and generated non-existent legal sources. The admission is notable because Sullivan & Cromwell has the resources to implement robust AI safeguards, yet the errors still slipped through. The case highlights a systemic risk: even well-resourced law firms cannot rely on AI for legal drafting without thorough human verification. Courts worldwide have been imposing increasingly severe sanctions for AI-hallucinated legal filings, including six-figure fines and bar referrals, making this a critical issue for the legal profession.

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

Unidentified AI toolUnanswered

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.

AI-generated lawyer avatarsUnanswered

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.

Google AI OverviewsUnanswered

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.