On May 6th, I spoke with reporter Robert Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle about AI. One of the issues we discussed was how AI is impacting the perception of lawyers by the public. I explained to Bob that I felt that the numerous cases of lawyers using fabricated case law is not good for that perception. Sometimes the general press picks up on these cases, which I believe does even more harm to the public’s view of attorneys. For example, Sullivan & Cromwell’s problematic use of AI has been widely reported. Now we have the highest profile use of hallucinations yet, the case of Hannah Payne. See Payne v. The State, S26A0459 (Ga. May 5, 2026).
What Happened
Payne was convicted of murder, false imprisonment, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the 2019 shooting death of Kenneth Herring. She was sentenced to life plus 13 years. She moved for a new trial. Assistant District Attorney Deborah Leslie opposed the motion. On September 12, 2025, the trial court denied the motion in an order largely prepared by ADA Leslie. On appeal, the Supreme Court flagged nine citations in the trial court’s order that either did not exist or did not support the propositions stated. The Court ordered the State to explain. ADA Leslie filed a supplemental brief and affidavit acknowledging she used AI software to draft the State’s briefs and the proposed order, and that she did not independently verify the citations before filing. In her supplemental brief, Leslie identified yet more cases in her trial court briefing that were AI-generated, unverified, and did not stand for the propositions cited. She also withdrew reliance on nine more authorities from the State’s December 16, 2025, appellate brief.
What the Court Did
The Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for a new order on Payne’s motion for a new trial. In addition, the Court strongly encouraged trial judges to read proposed orders with the understanding that AI may have been used to draft them. The Court did not decide the merits of Payne’s motion. Whether Payne gets a new trial is still open. The fabrications consumed substantial judicial resources in the process.
The Sanctions
The Supreme Court of Georgia sanctioned the ADA in the instant case. ADA Leslie is suspended from practicing before the Georgia Supreme Court for six months. She is also required to take an additional 12 CLE credits on ethics, brief writing, and proper use of artificial intelligence. She will have to seek reinstatement upon completion of the sanctions. The Court warned that future failures to verify filings will subject counsel generally, not just Leslie, to sanctions. The Court also noted that these sanctions are separate from any other penalties ADA Leslie might suffer from disciplinary bodies or her own employer.
There was a dissent. Justice LaGrua, joined by Justice Colvin, agreed with most of the opinion but dissented from the admonishment of the Clayton County District Attorney’s Office. Her view was that the elected DA had already sent the Court a lengthy apology, imposed her own discipline on Leslie, and announced new internal AI policies, and that those measures were sufficient. The majority responded in a footnote that it had admonished the office, not the District Attorney personally, since the filings went out under that office’s name.
With respect to the Justices, I believe it is long past the time for lawyers who fail to meet their most basic responsibilities to receive severe sanctions. We have been dealing with AI hallucinations since 2023. I have become frustrated by the sanctions many courts hand down when dealing with AI hallucinations. Some courts have begun to hand down substantial sanctions, but many are still not doing so. I know judges must be frustrated, so I do not understand why the penalties are not more severe. Humiliation clearly isn’t enough. Perhaps more substantial sanctions will make a difference.
What the Court Wrote about AI
Many courts in responding to hallucinated case law have specifically stated that they have no rule against artificial intelligence. Georgia’s Supreme Court made a similar statement:
While we have no rule against the responsible use of artificial intelligence software by attorneys, citing cases that do not exist or do not support the proposition for which they are cited is a violation of this Court’s rules and falls far beneath the conduct we expect from Georgia lawyers.
What it comes down to is this: it is inexcusable to allow a tool alone to do the work that is a major function of being an attorney. Conducting research, reading cases, and making sure they stand for the proposition for which they are cited is a fundamental part of the work attorneys do. Using AI to speed up the work is fine. Abdicating responsibility is not.
Tips for Avoiding Hallucinations in Court Filed Documents
I have provided similar tips a number of times, but I will provide them again here for those who are not frequent readers of my blog.
- Cite-check every time. Pull the case. Read the holding. Confirm the quote. Shepardize the case.
- Do not use AI to check AI. Use traditional legal research tools or Google Scholar to make sure the cases exist.
- Build verification into the workflow before the brief leaves the office. After the fact is too late. Remember that AI can add content without being told to do so. Compare final documents against prior versions to make certain that the AI didn’t add in a case, quotation, or some other incorrect piece of information. Word’s Compare Documents is one tool that allows you to complete this task quickly and easily.
- Train staff and write an AI use policy. If your firm uses AI, you should have an AI use policy, training on that policy, and training on permitted AI tools.
- Watch proposed orders. Make sure they are accurate. Trial courts often adopt drafts submitted by counsel. The Supreme Court of Georgia just told judges to read those drafts with fresh suspicion.