Lawyers know that AI can hallucinate. Judges warned them. Courts have sanctioned them for this. You keep citing fake AI cases anyway.

In April, the Alabama Supreme Court imposed sanctions on an attorney who filed legal briefs loaded with false AI-generated citations, including numerous references to cases that didn’t exist. After being told he had cited a fabricated precedent in a filing, the lawyer promised it wouldn’t happen again — but then cited “nonexistent cases” at the very end of the next sentence, a judge noted in a concurring opinion. At least one other attorney was disciplined this week for continuing to submit AI hallucinated material after being warned about it.

A database managed by Damien Charlotin, a senior research fellow at the Paris School of Advanced Business Studies (HEC Paris), lists more than 1,400 cases in which courts have dealt with AI errors over the past three years, including submissions from lawyers and self-represented litigants. As recently as last fall, Charlotin says, the list seemed to be growing exponentially. Since then it has leveled off and become a steady stream of angry…