West Virginia attorney admitted fake AI-generated citations in parental rights appeal brief
The West Virginia Supreme Court questioned an attorney during oral arguments after her brief and reply brief in a parental rights appeal contained significant inaccuracies, including fake AI-generated citations. The attorney said she did not use AI to draft the briefs but did use it to research case law, which led to miscitations and fabricated syllabus points. She said she thought she had checked the citations and had submitted the brief around 4 a.m. under pressure. She was permitted to continue her argument in the case, an appeal of an order terminating parental rights.
What the AI did
An AI tool the attorney used to research case law produced fake citations, miscitations and made-up syllabus points (the summary legal principles a court attaches to its decisions). These ended up in briefs filed with the West Virginia Supreme Court. It has not been reported which AI tool was used.
First reported October 13, 2026 · Added to the register October 21, 2026 · 1 source
- Deployer
- Amanda Alexander
- Affected
- West Virginia Supreme Court
- Country
- United States (West Virginia)
- When it happened
- Not stated in the sources
- First reported
- October 13, 2026
What this means for you
Could this affect you?
If your lawyers or staff use AI for legal research. Courts, opposing parties and clients in any legal proceeding can be exposed when citations fabricated by AI research tools are filed without being checked, as happened in this parental rights appeal.
What to check
- Require lawyers and staff to check every AI-sourced citation against the original case law before filing.
- Verify every AI-sourced quotation against primary sources before filing.
- Set internal rules on how AI may be used for legal research.
Areas of your AI programme this touches
Every fact and its source (3)
- How AI was usedUsed AI to research caselaw, leading to miscitations and fabricated syllabus points“She acknowledged that she did use it to research caselaw, which led to the miscitations, as well as fabricated syllabus points.”[1]
- Attorney's explanationBrief written under pressure and submitted around 4 a.m.“But I wrote that brief under a lot of pressure and submitted it around, I believe, 4 a.m.”[1]
- Outcome at hearingAllowed to continue argument in appeal of order terminating parental rights“Alexander was permitted to continue with her argument in the case, which was an appeal of an order terminating parental rights.”[1]
Sources
- Attorney questioned over AI errors in parental rights appealabajournal.com · October 13, 2026
How this record is classified. Severity M (2/5): harm to individuals, or a policy breach with limited reach. OECD level: incident, an event in which an AI system led to actual harm. Evidence: Reported, meaning press reporting only.
The facts in At a glance and in Every fact and its source are quoted from the sources listed. The summary, What the AI did and What this means for you are written from those sources and checked against them automatically before publication. Records reflect what has been disclosed, not everything that has happened. Incidents are found through news feeds and the GDELT Project.
