What was hallucinated

False Quotes: Case Law | In re Montoya, 341 B.R. 41 (Bankr. D. Utah 2006) exists, and the citation is correct. However, not only does the language quoted by counsel not appear anywhere in the court’s opinion, but the opinion does not address issues of standing at all. The opinion certainly does not dispute a secured creditor’s right to challenge the feasibility of a chapter 13 plan. || Fabricated: Case Law | In re Jager, 344 B.R. 349 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2006) does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | In re Coleman, 373 B.R. 907 exists, although the case is from the Bankruptcy Court in the Western District of Missouri, not Wisconsin. Again, not only does counsel’s quotation not appear in the case at all, the opinion does not discuss the proposition for which it is cited, let alone support it || False Quotes: Case Law | In re Russell, 458 B.R. 731, exists, although the case is from the Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of Virginia, not Wisconsin, and is from 2010, not 2011. Yet again, the quotation from counsel’s brief does not appear anywhere in the court’s opinion, and the opinion does not touch on the topic of standing at all

Details

"The first reason I issue sanctions stems from [Counsel]'s claim of ignorance—he asserts he didn't know the use of AI in general and ChatGPT in particular could result in citations to fake cases. Mr. Nield disputes the court's statement in Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc. (D. Wyo. 2025) that it is "well-known in the legal community that AI resources generate fake cases." Indeed, [Counsel] aggressively chides that assertion, positing that "in making that statement, the Wadsworth court cited no study, law school journal article, survey of attorneys, or any source to support this blanket conclusion."I find [Counsel]'s position troubling. At this point, to be blunt, any lawyer unaware that using generative AI platforms to do legal research is playing with fire is living in a cloud."[...]"If anything, [Counsel]’s alleged lack of knowledge of ChatGPT’s shortcomings leads me to do what courts have been doing with increasing frequency: announce loudly and clearly (so that everyone hears and understands) that lawyers blindly relying on generative AI and citing fake cases are violating Bankruptcy Rule 9011 and will be sanctioned"

Sanction teardown · N.D. Illinois (Bankruptcy), USA · 2025-07-18

In re Marla C. Martin

What happened

In N.D. Illinois (Bankruptcy), USA, a filing relied on ChatGPT to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

False Quotes (Case Law)

In re Montoya, 341 B.R. 41 (Bankr. D. Utah 2006) exists, and the citation is correct. However, not only does the language quoted by counsel not appear anywhere in the court’s opinion, but the opinion does not address issues of standing at all. The opinion certainly does not dispute a secured creditor’s right to challenge the feasibility of a chapter 13 plan.
Fabricated (Case Law)

In re Jager, 344 B.R. 349 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2006) does not exist.
False Quotes (Case Law)

In re Coleman, 373 B.R. 907 exists, although the case is from the Bankruptcy Court in the Western District of Missouri, not Wisconsin. Again, not only does counsel’s quotation not appear in the case at all, the opinion does not discuss the proposition for which it is cited, let alone support it
False Quotes (Case Law)

In re Russell, 458 B.R. 731, exists, although the case is from the Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of Virginia, not Wisconsin, and is from 2010, not 2011. Yet again, the quotation from counsel’s brief does not appear anywhere in the court’s opinion, and the opinion does not touch on the topic of standing at all

Which AI tool

ChatGPT. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Sanction of $5,500 and mandatory AI education (monetary penalty: 5500 USD.)

Additional detail

"The first reason I issue sanctions stems from [Counsel]'s claim of ignorance—he asserts he didn't know the use of AI in general and ChatGPT in particular could result in citations to fake cases. Mr. Nield disputes the court's statement in Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc. (D. Wyo. 2025) that it is "well-known in the legal community that AI resources generate fake cases." Indeed, [Counsel] aggressively chides that assertion, positing that "in making that statement, the Wadsworth court cited no study, law school journal article, survey of attorneys, or any source to support this blanket conclusion."I find [Counsel]'s position troubling. At this point, to be blunt, any lawyer unaware that using generative AI platforms to do legal research is playing with fire is living in a cloud."[...]"If anything, [Counsel]’s alleged lack of knowledge of ChatGPT’s shortcomings leads me to do what courts have been doing with increasing frequency: announce loudly and clearly (so that everyone hears and understands) that lawyers blindly relying on generative AI and citing fake cases are violating Bankruptcy Rule 9011 and will be sanctioned"

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/07/19/any-lawyer-unaware-that-generative-ai-research-is-playing-with-fire-is-living-in-a-cloud/, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).