A Georgia prosecutor, Deborah Leslie, used an AI tool (believed to be ChatGPT or a similar generative AI) to research case citations for a murder trial in Clayton County, Georgia. The AI generated several legal citations that appeared legitimate but were entirely fabricated - citing cases that do not exist or do not support the legal proposition for which they were cited. The Georgia Supreme Court disciplined Leslie, barring her from appearing before justices for six months. Justice Benjamin Land wrote in the ruling: 'Citing cases that do not exist or do not support the proposition for which they are cited is a violation of this Court's rules and falls far beneath the conduct we expect from Georgia lawyers.' This case is part of a growing trend of AI hallucinated legal citations, with LAINE AI reporting 724 such cases nationally in Q1 2026 alone - a 32-fold increase from Q1 2024.
0 Answers
No answers yet. Be the first to check this.
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
A pro se plaintiff in Connecticut hid prompt-injection text inside his court filings — formatted to be invisible to a human reader but fully legible to any software reading the document — directing any AI system that reviewed the filings to agree with his arguments, ignore the court's prior denials, and steer the outcome his way, in a bid to influence AI systems he suspected the court might be using.
Nippon Life Insurance Company of America filed a lawsuit against OpenAI on March 4, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that ChatGPT engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by providing legal advice and drafting documents that led Graciela Dela Torre to breach a settlement in a disability insurance dispute.
An AI drafting tool generated the State’s brief and proposed order in the Hannah Payne murder appeal, including at least five citations to court cases that do not exist and at least five more that do not support the proposition for which they are cited.