Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al.

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 20 de marzo de 2026, E.D. Louisiana (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en la herramienta de IA ChatGPT y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Second of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was nonexistent; Court noted unusual bullet-point formatting and counsel's failure to read the cited cases.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Third of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist; Court concluded counsel relied on ChatGPT and did not verify the authority.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. One of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist as cited; Court found it was likely generated by ChatGPT and not checked by counsel.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Fourth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was fabricated; the Court treated it as an AI-generated hallucination that went unchecked.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Fifth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist; counsel admitted using ChatGPT and failing to confirm the citations' validity.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Sixth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was nonexistent; Court emphasized attorneys must read and verify every case they cite.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Seventh of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist as cited; Court found objective Rule 11 violation based on failure to inquire.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Eighth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was fabricated; Court noted supervisors bore responsibility for not noticing the hallucinations.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Ninth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist; Court determined the citations were likely produced by ChatGPT and unverified by counsel.

Desenlace

Monetary sanction & formal admonishment. Sanción económica: 1250 USD. Sanción profesional: Yes.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1771/Gentry_v._Thompson_USA_20_March_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.