What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited fictitious case citations in his reply to the opposition to the motion to compel (Dkt. 123); he conceded this; the court found negligence but no bad faith and declined monetary sanctions. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misrepresented the holdings of various cases in the same reply brief (Dkt. 123); he conceded this; the court found negligence but no bad faith and declined monetary sanctions.

Details

AI UseKruglyak acknowledged he had used free generative AI tools to conduct legal research and included fabricated case citations and misrepresented holdings in his filings. He claimed ignorance of AI hallucination risk at the time of filing but stated he had since ceased such reliance and sought more reliable legal sources.Hallucination DetailsThe plaintiff cited non-existent decisions and falsely attributed holdings to real ones. He did not initially disclose the use of AI but conceded it in response to the court’s show cause order. The brief at issue combined wholly fabricated cases with distorted summaries of actual ones.Ruling/SanctionMagistrate Judge Sargent concluded that Kruglyak had not acted in bad faith, credited his prompt admission and explanation, and noted his subsequent remedial efforts. No monetary sanctions were imposed, but the court emphasized its authority to impose such penalties if future violations occur.Key Judicial ReasoningThe court stressed that while generative AI platforms may assist litigants, they are unreliable legal authorities prone to hallucinations. Rule 11 requires a reasonable inquiry before filing, and ignorance of AI limitations does not excuse defective legal submissions. However, leniency was warranted here due to Kruglyak’s candor and corrective action.

Sanction teardown · W.D. Virginia, USA · 2025-03-25

Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

What happened

In W.D. Virginia, USA, a filing relied on ChatGPT to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

Fabricated (Case Law)

Plaintiff cited fictitious case citations in his reply to the opposition to the motion to compel (Dkt. 123); he conceded this; the court found negligence but no bad faith and declined monetary sanctions.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Plaintiff misrepresented the holdings of various cases in the same reply brief (Dkt. 123); he conceded this; the court found negligence but no bad faith and declined monetary sanctions.

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

No monetary sanctions; Warning

Additional detail

AI UseKruglyak acknowledged he had used free generative AI tools to conduct legal research and included fabricated case citations and misrepresented holdings in his filings. He claimed ignorance of AI hallucination risk at the time of filing but stated he had since ceased such reliance and sought more reliable legal sources.Hallucination DetailsThe plaintiff cited non-existent decisions and falsely attributed holdings to real ones. He did not initially disclose the use of AI but conceded it in response to the court’s show cause order. The brief at issue combined wholly fabricated cases with distorted summaries of actual ones.Ruling/SanctionMagistrate Judge Sargent concluded that Kruglyak had not acted in bad faith, credited his prompt admission and explanation, and noted his subsequent remedial efforts. No monetary sanctions were imposed, but the court emphasized its authority to impose such penalties if future violations occur.Key Judicial ReasoningThe court stressed that while generative AI platforms may assist litigants, they are unreliable legal authorities prone to hallucinations. Rule 11 requires a reasonable inquiry before filing, and ignorance of AI limitations does not excuse defective legal submissions. However, leniency was warranted here due to Kruglyak’s candor and corrective action.

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://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/360/Kruglyak_v_Home_Depot_USA_Inc_W.D._Virginia_USA_March_25_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).