Skip to content

Tracked Changes, Tuesday, September 15, 2026

What changed in legal AI · · 2 min read

  1. Legora rebuilds its legal research with an ontology of law and its own citator

    Legora announced on September 14 new legal research built on an ontology of law, a map of how sources relate, which authority binds and when it applied, plus an AI-native citator. The company says technology from its Qura and Wexler acquisitions underpins both, with attorney-editors running quality control. The ontology is in limited beta and is due for general availability in the fourth quarter. Pricing was not announced.

    Source: Legora · Read more: How to avoid AI-hallucinated citations in court filings

  2. ILTA publishes its 2026 Legal Technology Survey, drawn from 508 law firms

    The International Legal Technology Association released its 2026 Legal Technology Survey on September 14. It draws on responses from 508 law firms representing more than 139,000 lawyers and about 275,000 users, and covers cloud migration, AI integration, cybersecurity and document management. ILTA's CEO said the results point "squarely at AI adoption." The full report is open to ILTA members and subscribers.

    Source: International Legal Technology Association · Read more: How many lawyers use AI? Legal AI adoption statistics, reconciled

  3. Eastern District of New York requires two lawyers to disclose a fake-citation sanction in filings for two years

    In Henry v. Long Island University, an employment case decided September 14, the Eastern District of New York imposed a two-year filing-disclosure sanction on counsel, the database records. The entry counts twelve problems: eight fabricated citations, three quotations that do not appear in the cited cases and one superseded opinion presented as a Second Circuit decision. No monetary penalty is listed.

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

  4. SDNY judge finds bad faith over ChatGPT-sourced misquotes and orders a $500 sanction and CLE

    On September 14, a judge in the Southern District of New York sanctioned counsel in Tiekert v. Village of Mamaroneck, a civil rights case, over quotations the court could not locate in the cited cases and holdings that were misstated. Counsel told the court he relied on ChatGPT. The court found counsel acted in bad faith by deliberately avoiding the problem. It ordered $500, continuing legal education and disclosure obligations.

    Source: Damien Charlotin, AI Hallucination Cases database · 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