Real case · checked 19 October 2026
Six fake cases from ChatGPT cost two lawyers and their firm $5,000.
In Mata v. Avianca, a federal judge in New York sanctioned lawyers whose filing cited decisions that ChatGPT made up. He also said what lawyers owe the court when they use AI.
The short version
In Mata v. Avianca, a lawyer used ChatGPT for research. The filing cited six decisions the court called bogus, with bogus quotes and citations.
The penalty was $5,000, plus a letter to each real judge falsely named as the author of a fake opinion.
The court said reliable AI help isn't inherently improper. Checking it is still on you. Check every citation.
Sources
Checked on 19 October 2026.
"there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance. But existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings."
Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (PKC), Opinion and Order on Sanctions. Filed 22 June 2023, page 1. "A penalty of $5,000 is jointly and severally imposed on Respondents"
Mata v. Avianca, Opinion and Order on Sanctions. Filed 22 June 2023. "Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations."
Mata v. Avianca, Order to Show Cause. Filed 4 May 2023.
The respondents were the lawyers Peter LoDuca and Steven A. Schwartz and their firm, Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, P.C. The court also ordered a letter to each judge falsely named as the author of a fake opinion.
Watch
Psst posts every video on these channels.
Psst is made by Zain Ali, who founded ivector, a software company.