Published opinion, 9 March 2026 · source · PDF · 14 pages
Before addressing the merits of the case, we are troubled by certain irregularities in the brief filed on Slay’s behalf by his attorney, Loletha Hale. We note that several of the cases cited therein appear to be fictitious.2 Such “ hallucinated” cases are typically a hallmark of the irresponsible use of regenerative artificial intelligence (A.I.) in legal drafting. See Shahid v.
5, 2025) (2025 WL 3895555). However, Ross has not complained, nor does it appear that the fictitious cases impeded her ability to respond to Slay’s arguments. Compare Shahid, 376 Ga.
And, we are unaware of the imposition of any sanctions against Hale for similar conduct in this Court. We thus caution Hale that any future filings in this Court containing fictitious cases and citations may result in 2 Slay’s brief purports to cite to these following cases: Waller v. Waller, 288 Ga.