[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael D. Berman.]

A North Carolina federal court recently held that reliance on cite checking software to disclose hallucinations prior to filing a document in court is not the equivalent of having an attorney, or a paralegal working at an attorney’s direction, verify citations as was required by the Court’s Standing Order.

In May, I published a blog about Williams v. Honl, 348 Or. App. 505 (Apr. 22, 2026), titled Cite Checking to Find Hallucinated Cases Deemed Insufficient. The Oregon court wrote: “[S]o that the clear does not become cloudy, we state the obvious: Using generative artificial intelligence to generate legal briefs and then simply cite-checking them bears no resemblance to the competent practice of law…. When lawyers trade reflection for automation, they surrender the very quality that makes their words worthy of belief. Although cite checking is, of course, an important part of producing reliable, competent briefs, it is not the type of work that requires a law degree. Law is a profession….” (cleaned up; citation and quotations omitted; emphasis added).

A similar result was reached in Smith v. Polk Co., 2026 WL 2280990 (W.D. N. Car. Aug. 7, 2026). After the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for use of artificial intelligence, counsel for Plaintiff responded by letter. Plaintiff apologized for inadvertently failing to file an A.I. certification required by the court. Additionally:

Counsel represented that she “does not use AI to conduct legal research,” and that “[t]o ensure the accuracy of citations … [she] runs briefs through LexisNexis brief analysis” and fixes any error that appears “alarming.” … Counsel further represented that she “has AI embedded in her practice” but that her “AI program cannot conduct research and cannot hallucinate.” … Regarding the fabricated quotations, counsel for the Plaintiff says that she “must be the origin,” that “she made the errors, accepts full responsibility, attempted to properly verify her work and fell short,” and that “AI cannot be blamed.” … Counsel also represents that she has now “made changes to her practice” and “has added additional time to more thoroughly vet her work.”

Id. at *10 (emphasis added).

The court was not satisfied:

The Court is deeply troubled by the errors previously identified in the Plaintiff’s filings, and counsel’s letter does little to allay the Court’s concerns. Counsel indicates that she relies on a LexisNexis program for citation verification rather than having an attorney, or a paralegal working at an attorney’s direction, verify citations as required by the Court’s Standing Order. Moreover, counsel has not explained the origin of the fabricated quotations other than to accept responsibility for them and assert that they were not produced by an artificial intelligence program. How such fabricated quotations could have appeared in the Plaintiff’s filings at all therefore remains a mystery. Finally, while counsel asserts that the artificial intelligence program embedded in her practice cannot hallucinate, she has provided no corroboration for that assertion, nor has she even provided the name of the artificial intelligence program that she uses. As a result, the Court finds that counsel’s response has fallen well short of the Court’s expectations. Nevertheless, because counsel has accepted responsibility for the errors in the Plaintiff’s filings, the Court will discharge the Show Cause Order. Counsel for the Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that any similar shortcomings in future filings will result in sanctions.

Id. (emphasis added).

For general guidance, see Annot., 110 A.L.R.7th Art. 3 (Originally published in 2026), titled “Sanctions and Remedies Where Parties Submit Citations Hallucinated by Artificial Intelligence Programs—State Cases.”

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.