\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAI hallucinations in court filings are creating obligations for lawyers on both sides of the v. If you’re the one who filed them, how you handle it will determine whether the court moves on or drops the hammer. If you found hallucinated citations in opposing counsel’s filing, civility is almost always the right first move. Withers v. City of Aberdeen, a June 2026 Mississippi federal case where all four lawyers were removed, shows what happens when nobody takes responsibility, and why the tools you choose matter as much as how you use them.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n You receive a filing from opposing counsel. You pull up a citation. It points to nothing. Then another. Same result.<\/span><\/p>\n What do you do? And what happens when you\u2019re the one who filed it?<\/span><\/p>\n AI hallucination court cases are multiplying. Courts have escalated their response. One judge removed lawyers from cases, imposed fines, banned attorneys from entire districts, and referred them for disciplinary action. The legal consequences of<\/span> AI hallucinations<\/span><\/a> are no longer limited to a warning and a corrected brief.<\/span><\/p>\n The obligations for the filing party are clear. But the question of what to do when you\u2019re on the receiving end is less discussed, and what drives the severity of court sanctions for AI hallucinations is even less understood. Here\u2019s what we\u2019re seeing on both sides of the filing.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Let\u2019s start with the situation nobody wants to be in. You\u2019ve submitted a filing, and it contains citations to cases that don\u2019t exist or cases that don\u2019t say what you\u2019ve cited them for. The legal liability for AI hallucinations falls squarely on the signing attorney, whether the error is in a brief, a motion, or any other paper submitted to the court. That\u2019s true under the<\/span> ethical duties that already apply to AI in legal practice<\/span><\/a>, and courts are enforcing it.<\/span><\/p>\n Before you even get to the filing stage, you have Rule 1.1, the duty of competence. Rule 3.3: a duty of candor toward the tribunal. Rule 5.1, the duty of supervision. And Rule 5.3, the duty of supervision for everyone on your staff who is not licensed, including AI. You need to make sure that you have read the cases and verified them before you submit any filing.<\/span><\/p>\n If you\u2019ve submitted a filing with hallucinations, the requirement is that you amend it. You have a duty to notify the court. Sometimes it might require the court\u2019s permission to amend, but you cannot leave it and hope that nobody finds it. Many courts have safe harbor provisions built into their rules so that you can issue corrections.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s good practice to apologize to the court and to show how you will prevent it from happening again.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t 10 minutes read
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPublished Jun 23, 2026
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n![\"AI](\"https:\/\/www.clio.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Blog-AI-for-Legal-Research-1-750x422.png\" "\\"MS")
\n\t\t<\/picture>\n\t<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\nAI hallucinations in legal filings: Your obligations when you\u2019ve filed one<\/b><\/h2>\n