Legal drafting with an unchecked fabricated citation
A Utah court filing contained a nonexistent case generated through ChatGPT. According to the court account reported by heise, the responsible lawyer had not checked the draft. The court ordered cost reimbursement and a $1,000 payment. This is a documented failure case.
Source checked: the source link is valid and the automated fact check passed. The summary is AI-assisted. This is not human verification. Check the original source before relying on its claims.
For whom
Legal professionals in firms of any size studying drafting risks; legal research expertise.
Not for
Unsuitable for submitting citations without checking the underlying primary legal sources.
Brain Score
- Impact
- 0/2
- Evidence
- 1/2
- Reproducibility
- 1/2
- Maturity
- 2/2
- Reach
- 1/2
Five values from 0 to 2. The total has a minimum of 1. A reading aid based on the source, not an independently measured performance result. How the score works
Still current?
Partly, better ways exist
Today: Draft from retrieved legal sources and independently verify every case and quotation before filing; ChatGPT can still invent citations.
Augments or replaces?
Replaces the task
The lawyer submitted an unchecked AI draft, handing off legal research and drafting without exercising the necessary professional judgement.
Original source
- Type
- News
- Published
- Data as of
The data date records when this dataset was included in the collection. It is separate from the publication date of the source.