Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 NOVEMBER 2026

Three Strikes And You’re Out – Sort Of

Greenberg Traurig
Greenberg Traurig
Contributor
Greenberg Traurig

Greenberg Traurig

Greenberg Traurig, LLP has approximately 3,200 lawyers across 51 locations in the United States,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Greenberg Traurig

A federal court in New York has issued a series of rulings that demonstrate the serious consequences of filing legal documents containing AI-generated hallucinated citations and fabricated case law. The decisions trace an escalating pattern of sanctions, from initial warnings to substantial fee awards and disciplinary referrals, as counsel repeatedly submitted filings bearing unmistakable signs of unsupervised generative AI use.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

A recent case out of the Southern District of New York (No. 24-CV-6290 (DEH) (BCM), SDNY) reads like a manual of how not to use AI. In fact, the court repeatedly found that the plaintiff’s filings bore the hallmarks of unsupervised generative-AI drafting — including hallucinated, non-existent case citations — and sanctioned the plaintiff accordingly. The AI-related findings appear across three principal decisions:

  • LiveVideo I — Report & Recommendation (the Report or the R&R), Aug. 12, 2025 (Moses, M.J.) (2025 WL 2933706 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2025));
  • LiveVideo II — Opinion & Order adopting the R&R, Sept. 30, 2025 (Ho, J.) (2025 WL 2778110 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2025)); and
  • LiveVideo III — Opinion & Order on sanctions, June 9, 2026 (Ho, J.) (2026 WL 1662131 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2026)).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from