[UPDATE] Opposing Counsel Just Filed a ChatGPT Hallucination with the Court

Legal Proceedings Update: The Court’s Response to a ChatGPT-Induced Filing

It has been a month since my initial report regarding a highly unusual incident in our legal proceedings. For those unfamiliar, you can review the original discussion here.

Background of the Incident

The incident involved opposing counsel submitting a court brief entirely generated by artificial intelligence, specifically ChatGPT. The document contained numerous fabricated citations, fictitious case law, and invented quotations—all consistent with AI hallucinations. While the quality of the arguments was compelling, the legal authority cited was fundamentally flawed.

Once this was brought to light through my responsive submissions, the court issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC), questioning why the attorney should not face professional discipline for this misconduct.

Recent Developments and Court Proceedings

Since then, the court convened a hearing regarding the OSC. The opposing attorney appeared in person and demonstrated genuine remorse. He is an experienced lawyer with over 35 years of practice. During the hearing, he explained that a junior associate, who was no longer with the firm, had drafted and submitted the problematic brief. Unaware of the inaccuracies, the senior attorney signed the document without thoroughly reviewing it. He only became aware of the issue when a different attorney was sent to argue the case at the hearing.

The court’s stance appeared to be a mix of concern and understanding. On one side, there was recognition of inadequate supervision over the junior attorney and the careless submission of misleading citations. On the other, the senior attorney’s remorse, absence of prior disciplinary history, and proactive remedial measures—including terminating the responsible associate—were taken into account.

Court’s Sanction and Its Justification

Ultimately, the court imposed a sanctions award of $750 payable to the court clerk—a penalty below the threshold that would trigger reporting to the state bar. Additionally, the attorney was ordered to send apology letters both to our firm and his client, and to file proofs of service with the court.

While the sanctions were not as severe as they could have been—particularly considering the appellate court’s guidance in Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. (a ruling cited in the OSC)—they were deemed appropriate given