Caught, not sanctioned
Perplexity AI
2026-07-01
Counsel filed a brief with fictitious citations and a corrected brief that kept the fabricated legal synthesis; the court ordered the lawyer and firm to show cause.
Kevin Leiske et al. v. Robert Gregory Kidd et al. · Richard P. Rollo; Richards, Layton & Finger · Delaware Court of Chancery · DE
“"Counsel cannot discharge those obligations by relying on a paralegal, much less on an artificial intelligence program."”
Cases that don't exist
- Perconti v. Thornton Oil Corp.
litigationsentinel.com ↗
The file →
- In Kevin Leiske et al. v. Robert Gregory Kidd et al., a lawyer faced judicial scrutiny.
- The lawyer submitted filings containing fabricated case law, false quotes, and misrepresented case law, which were attributed to an AI tool.
- The court issued an order to show cause, indicating a potential sanction.
- The incident occurred in the Delaware Chancery Court, a state court.
- On July 1, 2026, the court acted after the use of Perplexity AI was identified as the source of the errors.