Guides / Risk
Risk2026-10-06
A Mississippi judge barred two lawyers for two years; the Ninth Circuit suspended two attorneys for six months. Here is what changed in 2026 — and the check that keeps you out of the order.
In 2026, courts sharply escalated sanctions for AI-fabricated citations. A federal judge in Mississippi barred two lawyers for two years and fined all four after both sides cited fake cases (June 2026). The Ninth Circuit sanctioned and suspended two attorneys for six months after a brief contained citations to opinions that did not exist (June 2026). Sanctions have risen from $5,000 in Mata v. Avianca (2023) to a record six-figure sum, and California's SB 574 (October 2026) adds a stronger duty of review. The practical lesson is simple: open every citation and confirm it exists, is current and supports the proposition before anything is filed.
The tool is fluent, the work is fast, and the reviewer is tired. One lawyer told the court she did not know what a hallucinated case was. But the courts are consistent: using AI is fine; filing an unverified citation is not. The Ninth Circuit said it was not sanctioning the use of generative AI — only the failure to guard against its mistakes.
A missing citation is far better than a false one. If a point cannot be traced to something you have opened, it does not go into the document.
One lawyer's checking is fragile; a firm's policy is not. A one-page AI-use policy, a matter-level register and a named sign-off turn a habit into a defence. That is exactly what the Governance Pack is for.
Written for legal professionals. Not legal advice. Always verify every authority and let a named lawyer sign off.