Northwest Courts Wrestle with AI ‘Hallucinated’ Citations by Pro Se Litigants
his past month, courts in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho all wrestled with “hallucinated” citations generated by artificial intelligence tools used by pro se litigants.
The cases included a disparate mix of substantive law areas and procedural postures. The Washington case, King v. AT&T, 2026 WL 2651548 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 9, 2026) (unpublished), involved a pro se plaintiff suing several corporations at the trial court level over asserted violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Oregon case, R.M. v. Mohr, 2026 WL 2859282 (Or. App. Sept. 23, 2026), concerned a pro se respondent appealing a judge’s restraining order in a family law matter. The Idaho case, Posey v. Bushnell, 2026 WL 2833228 (Idaho Sept. 22, 2026), involved a pro se defendant appealing an adverse jury verdict on a defamation claim.
All shared the common thread of multiple fake citations generated by the AI tools the pro se litigants used in their filings. At this writing, sanctions in the Washington case were pending, a fine was imposed in Oregon, and the Idaho Supreme Court refused to consider the arguments impacted by the nonexistent citations.
Despite the varying contexts, two overriding points stand out—one applying to fake citations generally regardless of whether the filing was submitted by a lawyer or a pro se, and one more narrowly tailored to pro se litigants.
First, and more generally, the sense of judicial frustration over fake citations was palpable. The Oregon Court of Appeals captured this understandable feeling: “When parties use artificial intelligence that generates fabricated legal authorities, and when they then set forth arguments based on those fabricated authorities, we cannot properly consider the issues presented by cases. This is so because we are faced with the task of recognizing and identifying fabricated authorities and then responding to the use of those authorities. In this process, our court’s resources are diverted to, among other things, preparing show cause orders, considering whether to allow the amendment and refiling of briefing, and determining whether to impose financial sanctions, and, if so, the amount of those sanctions. As a result, we are diverted from giving timely decisions to parties regarding the merits of their disputes”
Second, and more tailored to pro se litigants, the courts stressed that the procedural rules apply to represented and unrepresented litigants alike. The Idaho Supreme Court put it this way: “All litigants, whether represented by counsel or proceeding pro se, are obligated to ensure the accuracy and validity of the arguments they present to this Court.”
Oddly, these three cases may say more about human nature than legal training. Regardless of whether the filer is a lawyer or a pro se, the Idaho Supreme Court underscored why shortcuts can’t be taken and citations need to be verified: “[A]dvocacy depends on the accurate and candid presentation of legal authority.”
About the Author
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
