Reliance on Hallucinated Authorities May Abandon the Issue

Courts facing hallucinated authorities have employed a wide array of sanctions, ranging from referrals to regulatory authorities to determine ethical issues, to striking pleadings, imposing educational requirements, and reprimanding the citing attorney or litigant, among others.

A recent concurring opinion came up with an interesting suggestion:

An appellate brief containing nonexistent case citations or fake legal authority needlessly undermines the validity of a party’s arguments….  Here, the appellant’s brief—as noted by the appellee—contains several fake case citations in support of his arguments. It is unclear whether the fake cases were the result of fabrications on the part of artificial intelligence….  Regardless, we should disregard any of the appellant’s arguments supported by nonexistent cases because a fake opinion is not “existing law” and citation to a fake opinion does not provide a non-frivolous ground for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law….  Failure to support a point with pertinent authority—or, as here, use of fake cases to support an argument—is akin to failing to brief an issue. ‘Where the appellant fails to brief an issue, that issue is waived or abandoned.

Scheer v. Scheer Farms, LLC, 2026 WL 1623023, at * 4 (Ct. Apls. Kans. Jun. 5, 2026)(Pickering, J., concurring)(emphasis added; unreported; cleaned up).