From April 2023 to June 29, 2026, there have been at least 1664 reports of legal decisions in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content. Approximately 972 of those came from pro se filings; lawyer conduct is responsible for 652 of those decisions. Frankly, that is 652 too many. Inclusion of hallucinated case citations is 100% preventable. 

It is not plausible for a lawyer to claim to be unaware that AI can generate fictious cases and citations. The hallucinations and resulting court actions are widely reported almost daily. And it is not plausible to blame AI when these hallucinations make it into court filings. AI is not the problem. Lack of competence and diligence is. The duties of competence and diligence, as well as the duty of candor to the tribunal, are not altered or lessened because the lawyer uses AI. Even before AI, it was not permissible for a lawyer to cite cases that were false or holdings that were not sound. A lawyer’s failure to “Shepardize”…