Login | August 02, 2025
Georgia judge issues order based on AI-hallucinated case law
SHERRY KARABIN
Legal Tech News
Published: July 25, 2025
It’s an embarrassing scenario that’s becoming more common in the legal profession: Fake case law hallucinated by a generative artificial intelligence tool cited in filings and/or arguments.
As Joe Patrice, a senior editor at Above the Law explains in a July 1 post (https://abovethelaw.com/2025/07/trial-court-decides-case-based-on-ai-hallucinated-caselaw/), while counsel and judges have flagged the errors before they resulted in any real harm, one superior court judge in Georgia failed to identify the fake cases, issuing an order based on non-existent case law.
Entitled “Trial Court Decides Case Based On AI-Hallucinated Caselaw,” Patrice, co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer, discusses Shahid v. Esaam.
The decision in the case, which was later vacated by the First Division of the Georgia Court of Appeals, involved a final judgment and a divorce decree served by publication.
The matter dates back to April 2022 when the husband (Sufyan Esaam) filed a complaint requesting a divorce. Service was performed by publication and the trial court entered a final judgment in July 2022.
The wife, (Nimat Shahid) filed a petition to reopen the case, which was denied.
In her October 2023 petition, the wife stated she had moved to Texas after the two separated in 2021 and that the husband “failed to use reasonable diligence” to determine her whereabouts before obtaining service by publication.
In her brief, the wife pointed out that the trial court relied on two fictitious cases in its order denying her petition, arguing that it was thus “void on its face.”
In his appellee’s brief, the husband did not respond to the fake cases claim.
The court of appeals opinion states, “Undeterred by Wife’s argument that the order (which appears to have been prepared by Husband’s attorney, Diana Lynch) is ‘void on its face’ because it relies on two non-existent cases, Husband cites to 11 additional cites in response that are either hallucinated or have nothing to do with the propositions for which they are cited.”
Making matters worse, the decision notes, the husband requested “attorney’s fees on appeal,” supporting the “request with one of the new hallucinated cases.”
Patrice said although the court of appeals couldn’t make the factual leap to blame AI for the fake cases, it did note irregularities that suggested the filings were drafted using generative AI.
On June 30, 2025, the court of appeals vacated the superior court’s order, remanding the matter for further proceedings, including a new hearing on the wife’s petition to reopen. It also imposed a $2,500 frivolous motion penalty against Diana Lynch, the husband’s attorney.