AI Risk Wire

Cases › made things up › LR-2026-0503

Alabama Supreme Court fines lawyer and tosses case over AI misuse

Preliminary Why: Publisher not yet named · subject to change

Status: no action reported

Severity minor
Loss or records US$17,200
Reported 27 Apr 2026
Industry legal services

No source states: developer and model, agent tool, could do, deployer.

The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in Ibach v. Stewart after appeal briefs filed by attorney W. Perry Hall contained inaccurate citations spurred by AI hallucinations. The court found the briefs contained nonexistent or misquoted authorities, and that citations made after Hall declared his mistakes would not recur were also to cases that do not exist. The court attributed the problem to attorney negligence in checking AI-generated citations. Hall was ordered to pay $17,200 in attorneys' fees and costs, referred to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline, and barred from filing in the court unless another attorney in good standing signs. The court and the opposing party spent significant time reviewing and responding to the fabricated authorities.

What happened

1 · What went wrongThe briefs cited nonexistent or misquoted authorities, including an out-of-state case the court said does not appear to exist.
2 · What it reached or didThe court and the opposing party spent significant time reviewing and responding to the fabricated authorities.
3 · How it was caughtThe court found that citations made after Hall's reply-brief declaration that mistakes would not recur also did not exist.

What was done

No source states an action or fix.

Risks

Made-up output relied on
Primary36 incidents

Read from the sources; not yet reviewed by a person.

Controls

Not yet read for controls. Controls that mitigate the primary risk:

Application

Grounding and fact checks · Human approval for high-impact actions · Output filtering and redaction · People told they are dealing with AI

Similar incidents

Lawsuits allege ChatGPT encouraged Alabama woman's suicide2026-07-20
Family sues OpenAI over alleged ChatGPT role in Alabama woman's death2026-07-17

All cases of this kind ›

Evidence

No source states: what the AI was doing, when it happened, when it was found, how many records were exposed, a count of the other parties affected, any court case, what set it off, what was done.

Show the full account: 4 items from the primary sources

What happened, in order

Not dated in the sources:

  • Hall declared in a reply brief that his mistakes would not recur; the court later found the next citations were to cases that do not exist.
  • Ibach v. Stewart, No. SC-2025-0106, is dated 4/24/26 in the case citation.
  • The court said the improper use of AI in the briefs was widespread and particularly egregious.
  • The justices referred Hall to the Alabama State Bar and barred him from filing unless another attorney in good standing signs.
Show every field, with its source and grade

What happened

Earliest source we hold
2026-04-27
D inferred by us from the described behaviour, reason shown
Who caught it
a human reviewer
C one secondary source states it
Cause
a human check that existed was skipped or failed
C one secondary source states it
Cause in detail
attorney negligence in checking his or her work
C one secondary source states it
What went wrong
made things up
C one secondary source states it
primary risk
RK14
D inferred by us from the described behaviour, reason shown

Impact

Direct loss
$17,200
C one secondary source states it
Severity
minor
D inferred by us from the described behaviour, reason shown
Kind of harm
operations
C one secondary source states it
Who was affected
The court and the opposing party
C one secondary source states it

Context

Industry
legal services
C one secondary source states it

Notes on gaps

The record rests on one press article quoting the court; the court opinion itself was not provided.

LR-2026-0503 · version 1 · published 2026-11-01 after automatic checks; not yet checked field by field by a person · JSON