Skip to content

Tracked Changes, Tuesday, September 8, 2026

What changed in legal AI · · 2 min read

  1. California Supreme Court declines to review sanctions against a firm over false citations

    The California Courts Newsroom reported on September 3 that the state Supreme Court denied a law firm's petition for review and its request to depublish a June First District Court of Appeal opinion in Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, a PAGA case. That opinion agreed with a San Francisco trial judge that the firm and three of its attorneys should be penalized for false citations and misrepresentations in a pleading.

    Source: California Courts Newsroom · Read more: How to avoid AI-hallucinated citations in court filings, ABA Formal Opinion 512 explained: what the ABA says about lawyers using generative AI

  2. D.C. Court of Appeals strikes an appellee's brief citing four nonexistent cases and refers the lawyer

    In Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, the D.C. Court of Appeals struck the appellee's brief on September 3 after finding that it cited four cases that do not exist. The attorney who wrote it told the court she used Google's generative AI search tool and did not verify the citations. The court also referred the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

    Source: Damien Charlotin, AI Hallucination Cases database · Read more: How to avoid AI-hallucinated citations in court filings

  3. Missouri appeals court orders $1,750 in fees after counsel cited two nonexistent or miscited cases

    In State ex rel. Steven Schnell v. Honorable Rebecca Richardson, a family law matter decided September 8, a Missouri appeals court found that counsel cited two nonexistent or incorrectly cited cases for the claim that all litigation involving one family must be heard by one court. The court found no authority for that claim. It awarded $1,750 in reasonable attorney's fees under Missouri Rule 55.03.

    Source: Damien Charlotin, AI Hallucination Cases database · Read more: How to avoid AI-hallucinated citations in court filings

  4. Harvey and Everlaw plan an integration that lets litigators query Everlaw evidence from inside Harvey

    Harvey announced on September 3 a partnership with Everlaw that will let litigation teams work with Everlaw evidence directly in Harvey, using the Model Context Protocol, a standard way for AI tools to connect to other software. Harvey says answers will cite back to source documents and that the integration should reach joint customers in fall 2026. It calls this the first phase of a longer partnership. No pricing was given.

    Source: Harvey