As courts grapple with an increasing surge of fabricated AI-generated case citations—an issue one judge has called an “epidemic”—lawyers are increasingly offering flimsy excuses to avoid serious repercussions. This trend raises concerns about transparency and integrity in legal proceedings.

Analysis of 23 cases, based on a database by AI expert Damien Charlotin, reveals that judges often see the most straightforward remedy as admitting AI use promptly, demonstrating humility, and voluntarily engaging in AI and law education. Such honesty can significantly reduce sanctions. However, many attorneys opt for less credible defenses, with some even outright denying AI involvement despite evidence to the contrary.

The most common excuse since 2023—when the problem gained public attention—is claiming ignorance of AI’s role in drafting filings. Legal experts warn that such claims undermine trust and highlight the need for clearer standards and accountability in AI-assisted legal work.

David Nield

Dave is a freelance tech journalist with over 20 years covering gadgets, apps, and the web. From Stockport, England, he covers news, features, and reviews for TechRadar, focusing on phones, tablets, and wearables. He ensures top weekend breaking news and has bylines at Gizmodo, T3, PopSci, and others. He edited PC Explorer and The Hardware Handbook for years. Read me on x.com or linkedin.