Colorado Court of Appeals Issues AI Warning

In a first-of-its-kind ruling in Colorado, the Colorado Court of Appeals was faced with deciding whether to sanction a pro-se party for filing a brief containing AI-generated fictitious citations. The Court declined to sanction the pro-se party but admonished him and issued a warning to self-represented litigants as well as lawyers to take caution in using AI for brief writing. In Al-Hamim v Star Hearthstone, LLC, a pro-se litigant filed a brief with the Court of Appeals which was generated using generative artificial intelligence (GAI). The brief was replete with fictitious legal citations which the Court referred to as “hallucinations.” In an otherwise unremarkable case, the Court considered the appropriate sanctions for the litigant’s use of GAI in the context of the proliferation of AI-assisted writing.

The Court discovered the hallucinations when it attempted to look up the cited cases, without success. The Court then issued a show cause order to which the pro-se plaintiff responded by acknowledging his use of AI, apologizing for doing so, and accepting responsibility for his actions. The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s conduct violated C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(B) but decided against sanctioning the pro-se plaintiff noting the above mea culpa and the fact that the plaintiff had not previously filed court documents with fake citations.

The Court concluded with the warning that “we will not look kindly on similar infractions in the future … a lawyer’s or self-represented party’s future filing in the court containing GAI-generated hallucinations may result in sanctions.”

The takeaway from this ruling is to do your own work. And, at the very least, check your citations. The court’s discussion starts on page 13 here.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.