Assuming a hallucinated citation just gets you a small fine
A fine is the cheap outcome. The expensive one is your name on a referral to the disciplinary panel.
Not legal advice. Sally roasts behaviour and use-cases in general, never your specific situation, and nothing here replaces a real lawyer. The cases are real; what you do about them is between you and someone licensed to tell you.
Treating AI-hallucinated authority as a minor risk because the worst case is "a sanction".
Park v. Kim
91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024) · US (2d Circuit)
An attorney cited a nonexistent case generated by ChatGPT and could not produce it when challenged.
The Second Circuit referred the attorney to its Grievance Panel for a disciplinary investigation, beyond any monetary penalty.
An appellate court did not just fine a lawyer for citing a nonexistent AI-generated case. It referred her to its grievance panel for a disciplinary investigation. The duty to make a reasonable inquiry before you sign a filing applies in full to AI-assisted research. There is no "the computer did it" exception.
The reputational cost lands harder than the dollar figure. A published opinion describing how you cited a case that does not exist follows your name around far longer than a five-figure sanction does.
“You saved twenty minutes of research and spent it, plus interest, explaining yourself to a grievance committee.”
- 01Verify authority yourself before filing, every time, regardless of how trustworthy the draft felt.
- 02Build a fixed check into your workflow: no citation goes out that you have not personally opened.
- 03Remember the duty is yours. Delegating the drafting to a model does not delegate the responsibility.
Not legal advice. General commentary on a use-case, not your situation. Talk to a real lawyer before you act.