Published opinion, 26 December 2024 · source · PDF · 26 pages
Star Hearthstone, LLC — Landlords and Tenants — Warranty of Habitability — Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; Technology — Artificial Intelligence — Generative AI Tools — Hallucinations; Colorado Rules of Appellate Procedure — Briefs — Citation to Authorities — Sanctions for Non-Compliance Since the use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools has become widespread, lawyers and self-represented litigants alike have relied on them to draft court filings.
The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion. this case, the division declines to impose sanctions against the appellant, but it puts lawyers and self-represented parties on notice that future filings containing GAI-generated hallucinations may may result in sanctions. COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2024COA128 Court of Appeals No.
For this reason, a person unfamiliar with the limitations of GAI tools can unwittingly rely on them to produce what appears to be text filled with citations to legal authorities. But these citations may be fictitious. Case names and citations that a GAI tool makes up are known as “hallucinations.” Snell v.
Al-Hamim’s opening brief in this appeal contained hallucinations, as well as bona fide legal citations.
12(b)(5) that he asserted against defendants, Star Hearthstone, LLC and IRT Living (jointly, the landlords). We affirm the court’s judgment against Al-Hamim and put him, the bar, and self-represented litigants on notice that we may impose sanctions if a future filing in this court cites “non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations.” Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F.
3d 443, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (holding that attorneys “abandoned their 3 responsibilities when they submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT”). I.
Court Filings with GAI-Produced Hallucinations A. The Hallucinations in Al-Hamim’s Opening Brief ¶ 25 Al-Hamim’s opening brief contains citations to the following fake cases: • Beck v. Tibbetts, 967 P.2d 150 (Colo.
Div. 1987). ¶ 26 After we attempted, without success, to locate these cases, we ordered Al-Hamim to provide complete and unedited copies of the cases, or if the citations were GAI hallucinations, to show cause 14 why he should not be sanctioned for citing fake cases. In his response to our show cause order, Al-Hamim admitted that he relied on AI “to assist his preparation” of his opening brief, confirmed that the citations were hallucinations, and that he “failed to inspect the brief.” He did not address why he should not be sanctioned.