What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Court and defendant identified numerous nonexistent cases and statutes cited in Plaintiff's filings; filings exhibited 'hallucinated' authorities consistent with AI generation. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff's filings included misconstrued holdings and quotations (misquoted or improperly attributed authority) that the Court and defendant flagged as inaccurate. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Filings advanced inapplicable legal theories and statutes (hallucinated or invented legal norms) that lacked basis in existing law, as identified by defendant and the Court.

Details

Clearpoint, a non-party document preparer, used undisclosed AI to draft filings for the pro se plaintiff that contained numerous nonexistent cases, statutes, and misquoted/misconstrued authorities. Nationstar highlighted over sixty instances; the Court found hallmarks of AI-produced work and referred the matter to the Arizona State Bar and Attorney General for potential investigation.

Sanction teardown · D. Arizona, USA · 2026-01-09

Pearl Gardner v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

What happened

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

Fabricated (Case Law)

Court and defendant identified numerous nonexistent cases and statutes cited in Plaintiff's filings; filings exhibited 'hallucinated' authorities consistent with AI generation.
False Quotes (Case Law)

Plaintiff's filings included misconstrued holdings and quotations (misquoted or improperly attributed authority) that the Court and defendant flagged as inaccurate.
Fabricated (Legal Norm)

Filings advanced inapplicable legal theories and statutes (hallucinated or invented legal norms) that lacked basis in existing law, as identified by defendant and the Court.

Which AI tool

Clearpoint. 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

Bar Referral

Additional detail

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/2026/01/16/business-is-apparently-selling-ai-hallucination-filled-documents-to-unwary-litigants-court-says/, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checker Back to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49 Sanctions-motion template