Noland v. Land

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

El 12 de septiembre de 2025, CA California (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited Goldstine v. LibertyMut. Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6216738 (W.D. Wash. 2020), which the court identified as a fabricated (nonexistent) case created by AI.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Appellant attributed a quotation to Schimmel v. Levin (195 Cal.App.4th 81) that does not appear in that opinion; court found the quoted language fabricated.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Appellant quoted language attributed to Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (64 Cal.App.4th 1496) that does not appear in the opinion; the court concluded the quotation was fabricated.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited Peake v. Underwood (227 Cal.App.4th 428) as supporting sanctions for filing a second dispositive motion, but the court does not address that issue; the citation was misused/false.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Appellant attributed words and a sanctions principle to Heckert v. MacDonald (208 Cal.App.3d 832) that do not appear in that opinion; the court found the quotation inaccurate.

Desenlace

Monetary Sanction; State Bar notified; opinion to be served on client.. Sanción económica: 10000 USD. Sanción profesional: Yes.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/778/Noland_v._Land__2025_Cal._App._LEXIS_584.PDF; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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