Whiting v. City of Athens, Tenn.

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

El 13 de marzo de 2026, CA Sixth Circuit (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Brief cited 'Berg v. Knox Cnty., 2024 WL 2012345, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 12, 2024)'; the court could not locate any such Sixth Circuit opinion and the WL citation produced no opinion.
• Fabricación de norma legal. Brief cited a non-existent Tennessee statute section 'T.C.A. § 29-12-119'; the court could not find that section in the Tennessee Code Annotated.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Brief attributed several quoted propositions to Fox v. Vice that do not appear in that opinion; the court found the quoted language absent from Fox.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Brief repeatedly quoted '"[T]he mere fact that a plaintiff did not prevail does not mean that the claim was frivolous."' and attributed it to Adcock-Ladd v. Secretary of the Treasury, but that language does not appear in Adcock-Ladd.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Brief cited 'Jones v. Hamilton Cnty., 29 F.4th 647, 655 (6th Cir. 2022)' for a Sixth Circuit proposition, but the reporter pages cited corresponded to unrelated Tenth Circuit opinions; the Sixth Circuit Jones exists only as an unpublished opinion and was misrepresented.
• Tergiversación de pruebas o escritos. Brief cited Complaint paragraph (R.31, ¶32) as stating that 'citizens were forced to park on highways and streets,' but the cited paragraph did not contain that statement.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Brief claimed Lindke v. Freed overruled the district court on legislative immunity and that Lindke addressed legislative immunity; the court noted Lindke concerned social-media blocking and was mischaracterized.

Desenlace

Adverse Costs Order; Monetary Sanction; Potential disciplinary proceedings. Sanción económica: 30000 USD. Sanción profesional: Yes.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de https://reason.com/volokh/2026/03/14/lawyers-citing-nonexistent-cases-ordered-to-pay-opponents-attorney-fees-double-costs-15k-fine/; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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