The most comprehensive database of AI hallucination cases in law: legal decisions from courts worldwide, searchable by country, party, AI tool, and outcome. Updated daily.
Lawyers Caught Citing AI-Hallucinated Cases Call It a 'Cautionary Tale'
The attorneys filed court documents referencing eight non-existent cases, then admitted it was a "hallucination" by an AI tool.
Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools
Legal practice has witnessed a sharp rise in products incorporating artificial intelligence (AI). Such tools are designed to assist with a wide range of core legal tasks, from search and summarization of caselaw to document drafting. But the large language models used in these tools are prone to "hallucinate," or make up false information, making their use risky in high-stakes domains. Recently, certain legal research providers have touted methods such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as "eliminating" (Casetext, 2023) or "avoid[ing]" hallucinations (Thomson Reuters, 2023), or guaranteeing "hallucination-free" legal citations (LexisNexis, 2023). Because of the closed nature of these systems, systematically assessing these claims is challenging. In this article, we design and report on the first preregistered empirical evaluation of AI-driven legal research tools. We demonstrate that the providers' claims are overstated. While hallucinations are reduced relative to general-purpose chatbots (GPT-4), we find that the AI research tools made by LexisNexis (Lexis+ AI) and Thomson Reuters (Westlaw AI-Assisted Research and Ask Practical Law AI) each hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time. We also document substantial differences between systems in responsiveness and accuracy. Our article makes four key contributions. It is the first to assess and report the performance of RAG-based proprietary legal AI tools. Second, it introduces a comprehensive, preregistered dataset for identifying and understanding vulnerabilities in these systems. Third, it proposes a clear typology for differentiating between hallucinations and accurate legal responses. Last, it provides evidence to inform the responsibilities of legal professionals in supervising and verifying AI outputs, which remains a central open question for the responsible integration of AI into law.
Judge Learns Lawyers on Both Sides of Case Used AI, Cancels Trial, Kicks Everyone Off the Case
When two AIs argue against each other, the legal system loses.
Automated Justice: Issues, Benefits and Risks in the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Its Algorithms in Access to Justice and Law Enforcement
The use of artificial intelligenceArtificial Intelligence (AI) (AI) in the field of law has generated many hopes. Some have seen it as a way of relieving courts’ congestion, facilitating investigations, and making sentences for certain offences more consistent—and therefore fairer. But while it is true that the work of investigators and judges can be facilitated by these tools, particularly in terms of finding evidenceEvidence during the investigative process, or preparing legal summaries, the panorama of current uses is far from rosy, as it often clashes with the reality of field usage and raises serious questions regarding human rightsHuman rights. This chapter will use the RobodebtRobodebt Case to explore some of the problems with introducing automationAutomation into legal systems with little human oversight. AI—especially if it is poorly designed—has biases in its data and learning pathways which need to be corrected. The infrastructures that carry these tools may fail, introducing novel bias. All these elements are poorly understood by the legal world and can lead to misuse. In this context, there is a need to identify both the users of AIArtificial Intelligence (AI) in the area of law and the uses made of it, as well as a need for transparencyTransparency, the rules and contours of which have yet to be established.
Automated Justice: Issues, Benefits and Risks in the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Its Algorithms in Access to Justice and Law Enforcement
The use of artificial intelligenceArtificial Intelligence (AI) (AI) in the field of law has generated many hopes. Some have seen it as a way of relieving courts’ congestion, facilitating investigations, and making sentences for certain offences more consistent—and therefore fairer. But while it is true that the work of investigators and judges can be facilitated by these tools, particularly in terms of finding evidenceEvidence during the investigative process, or preparing legal summaries, the panorama of current uses is far from rosy, as it often clashes with the reality of field usage and raises serious questions regarding human rightsHuman rights. This chapter will use the RobodebtRobodebt Case to explore some of the problems with introducing automationAutomation into legal systems with little human oversight. AI—especially if it is poorly designed—has biases in its data and learning pathways which need to be corrected. The infrastructures that carry these tools may fail, introducing novel bias. All these elements are poorly understood by the legal world and can lead to misuse. In this context, there is a need to identify both the users of AIArtificial Intelligence (AI) in the area of law and the uses made of it, as well as a need for transparencyTransparency, the rules and contours of which have yet to be established.
“Hallucinating” AI models help coin Cambridge Dictionary’s word of the year
Cambridge: "When an artificial intelligence hallucinates, it produces false information."
Lawyer Caught Using AI While Explaining to Court Why He Used AI
The attorney not only submitted AI-generated fake citations in a brief for his clients, but also included “multiple new AI-hallucinated citations and quotations” in the process of opposing a motion for sanctions.
What are AI hallucinations? Why AIs sometimes make things up
When AI systems try to bridge gaps in their training data, the results can be wildly off the mark: fabrications and non sequiturs researchers call hallucinations.
What are AI hallucinations? Why AIs sometimes make things up
When AI systems try to bridge gaps in their training data, the results can be wildly off the mark: fabrications and non sequiturs researchers call hallucinations.
AI fabrications in legal filings grow in Oregon, US
The general counsel for the Oregon State Bar said fabricated cases and citations have become more common among lawyers and people representing themselves.
AI for Law Firms: What the 8am Legal Industry Report Tells Us About AI Use
New data from 1,300+ legal professionals shows generative AI use has more than doubled year over year. The real question now: How should law firms structure governance and integration?
AI hallucinations can’t be stopped — but these techniques can limit their damage
Developers have tricks to stop artificial intelligence from making things up, but large language models are still struggling to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
AI hallucinations can’t be stopped — but these techniques can limit their damage
Developers have tricks to stop artificial intelligence from making things up, but large language models are still struggling to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The MyPillow guy’s lawyers got fined for using false AI-generated citations.
The attorneys defending MyPillow founder Mike Lindell in a defamation case (which he lost) were ordered to pay $3,000 each for putting AI-generated misquotes and “citations of cases that do not exist” in a brief submitted in February, as reported by ArsTechnica. More and more lawyers are getting caught — and punished — for including AI hallucinations in their work, and this trend will likely only continue to grow. [Link: Why do lawyers keep using ChatGPT? | https://www.theverge.com/policy/677373/lawyers-chatgpt-hallucinations-ai | The Verge]
New evidence, new challenges: ICC judges’ perspectives on user-generated evidence and judging in an age of artificial intelligence
Evidence recorded on personal digital devices, or “user-generated evidence” (UGE), has profoundly shaped our ways of knowing about international crimes. UGE can be expected to play an important role in future cases before the International Criminal Court (ICC), yet few trials to date have relied extensively on UGE.. This research provides important insights into how ICC judges define UGE and perceive its strengths and weaknesses, and on the readiness of the Court to adapt to judging in an age of Artificial Intelligence. Using grounded theory to analyse interviews with ICC judges, we identified several key themes, including concerns about the perceived importance and potential bias of evidence sources; the practical challenges of employing UGE; the burden placed on the parties to ensure the reliability of the evidence, to rigorously challenge the opposing party’s evidence, and the importance of preparing legal professionals to address the risks associated with misinformation and disinformation.
