AI

AI Chatbot Cites Fake Legal Case

AI Chatbot Cites Fake Legal Case reveals how a lawyer used Claude AI and unknowingly filed a bogus citation.
AI Chatbot Cites Fake Legal Case
Editorial Team
by Editorial Team
Jun 19, 2025, 3:16 am

AI Chatbot Cites Fake Legal Case captures a growing concern in legal practice: the risks of relying on generative AI tools without rigorous verification. In a recent incident, a lawyer from the prestigious law firm Latham & Watkins submitted a federal court filing that cited a non-existent case fabricated by Claude, an AI chatbot developed by Anthropic. This event is similar to the 2023 ChatGPT mishap involving false legal citations. Such occurrences not only threaten professional credibility, but they also raise significant ethical, procedural, and technical questions regarding the integration of artificial intelligence into sensitive industries like law.

Key Takeaways

  • A Latham & Watkins lawyer used Claude AI for a court brief, unknowingly citing a fictitious legal case.
  • This incident follows other AI-related legal missteps, including the ChatGPT case in Matos v. Empire Today.
  • The legal community faces urgent demands for AI literacy, ethics training, and stronger review processes.
  • Anthropic’s Claude, although promoted as more safety-conscious than ChatGPT, is still vulnerable to producing inaccurate content.

Also Read: AI Lawyers: Will artificial intelligence ensure justice for all?

Table of contents

The latest case of AI-generated misinformation occurred when a lawyer used Claude, Anthropic’s chatbot, to help draft a federal court filing. The filing included a citation to a fabricated legal case. Upon review, the judge and opposing counsel were unable to locate the cited case. This triggered scrutiny and a formal response. The failure to verify Claude’s output led to professional embarrassment and possible legal implications.

This incident is comparable to the situation from 2023 when attorneys in Matos v. Empire Today submitted briefs containing several fictitious cases created by ChatGPT. Both incidents involved insufficient fact-checking before submitting AI-derived content to the court.

What Is an AI Hallucination?

Definition: An AI hallucination occurs when a generative AI model produces content that is factually inaccurate, fabricated, or logically inconsistent, yet appears believable. In legal writing, this might include invented cases, misquoted rulings, or misrepresented statutes.

Also Read: Smarter AI, Riskier Hallucinations Emerging

Claude, developed by Anthropic, is designed with a “constitutional AI” architecture to align outputs with ethical standards. While it is marketed as safer than ChatGPT, it still produced a fictitious citation that was convincing enough to initially go undetected. This illustrates the persistent dangers of unverified AI use.

The following table compares the most notable incidents of legal hallucinations caused by generative AI:

FeatureClaude IncidentChatGPT Incident (Matos v. Empire Today)
DateMarch 2024May 2023
Legal Firm InvolvedLatham & WatkinsLevidow, Levidow & Oberman (NY-based)
AI Tool UsedClaude (Anthropic)ChatGPT (OpenAI)
Error TypeFake legal case citationSix fictitious precedents cited
Judicial ReactionScrutiny and ethical questionsDismissal of the brief, sanctions recommended

Legal professionals and AI researchers responded quickly to the Claude-related incident. Legal ethicists expressed concern that attorneys are becoming reliant on generative AI tools for critical work without applying sufficient oversight. The American Bar Association (ABA) restated that lawyers are required to verify the accuracy of any content they submit, regardless of whether it originates from an AI tool.

Professor Lisa Feldman, a legal scholar at the University of Michigan Law School, commented that “These errors are not just embarrassing. They represent breaches in the professional responsibility to represent clients and courts with diligence and competence.”

AI tools are often presented as solutions for streamlining legal work. Still, these episodes highlight how failure to verify AI-produced material can harm the very standard of professionalism that the legal system demands.

Also Read: Top AI Models with Minimal Hallucination Rates

Ethics and Liability: Where Does Accountability Lie?

The question of accountability reaches beyond individual attorneys. When false precedents enter court records because of AI-generated content, responsibility must still be assigned. Is it on the developer, the law firm, or the lawyer using the technology?

Most legal frameworks, including ABA Model Rule 1.1 (competence) and Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), place full accountability on the lawyer. In other words, even if AI generates the content, the attorney is still held responsible for its accuracy. Courts have made it clear that tools cannot replace human due diligence.

Expert Viewpoint: Best Practices for Law Firms

Dr. Rajeev Choudhary, a legal technology advisor, outlines three essential practices for using AI tools in legal workflows:

  • Verification Protocols: Every sentence generated by AI must be validated against established and credible legal sources.
  • Training and AI Literacy: Attorneys must be educated about the risks of AI-generated misinformation to make informed decisions.
  • AI Audit Logs: Firms should record and store all interactions with AI systems to enable reviews and maintain accountability.

2023 (May): ChatGPT creates six fake citations for Matos v. Empire Today. The lawyer faces professional sanctions.
2023 (October): A New York federal judge cautions legal professionals about risks tied to AI in court proceedings.
2024 (March): Claude AI generates a fictitious case referenced in a Latham & Watkins court filing. This prompts industry-wide concerns.

  • Can AI be used to draft legal documents? Yes. AI can assist in drafting, but attorneys must carefully review and verify all content before using it in legal proceedings.
  • What is an AI hallucination in legal writing? This occurs when AI creates invented or inaccurate information. In legal contexts, this includes non-existent case law or distorted statutes.
  • Has ChatGPT or other AI caused legal issues before? Yes. ChatGPT caused a notable issue in 2023 with fake legal citations. Now, Claude has added to those concerns.
  • What are ethical guidelines for lawyers using AI tools? Attorneys must verify all content, uphold accuracy, and remain responsible for submitted materials regardless of AI involvement.

Also Read: Artificial Intelligence and Architecture

The legal profession must navigate a critical juncture. Generative AI tools such as Claude and ChatGPT can offer efficiencies, but they also present substantial dangers if not used with caution. This recent case highlights the importance of review protocols, training, and ethical oversight. The legal system demands trust and precision. No matter how sophisticated the AI tool is, it must be subject to human judgment. Lawyers cannot delegate accountability to algorithms. The final responsibility will always rest with people, not programs.

References

Explore More from AI