Eminence Growth Solutions, home

Search

Subscribe
Menu

Search

Subscribe

AI failures · Fabricated content

Mata v. Avianca: lawyers and firm sanctioned for ChatGPT-fabricated case citations

Verified Checked against its sources on 3 sources quoted

Where it happened
New York, United States
Organization
Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C.
Date
2023-06-22 (sanctions opinion)
Function
Legal
Where it happened
Legal research; brief drafting
System
ChatGPT
Technology
Generative AI
Type of failure
Fabricated content
Caught by
The opposing party, A court

Summary

In a personal-injury suit against Avianca in the Southern District of New York, plaintiff's counsel filed an opposition citing judicial decisions that did not exist; they had been generated by ChatGPT. Avianca's counsel told the court it could not locate the cases, and the court found six of the submitted decisions to be bogus. Counsel kept standing by the citations after the court questioned them. On June 22, 2023, Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned attorneys Peter LoDuca and Steven Schwartz and their firm, Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, imposing a $5,000 penalty jointly and severally and requiring letters to the client and to the judges falsely named as authors of the fake opinions.

Consequence

  • Penalty of $5,000 imposed jointly and severally on the respondents (LoDuca, Schwartz and the Levidow firm)

Who caught it The opposing party, A courtFound outside the organization

Analysis

What could have been done

Checking AI output against its sources

Every factual element of AI output (citations, figures, quotations) is checked against its source before reliance.

Plaintiff's counsel filed an opposition citing judicial decisions, created by a generative AI tool, that did not exist; the court found six of the submitted decisions to be bogus.

Monitoring and escalation

Error rates, overrides, complaints and drift are monitored, with thresholds that trigger escalation.

Opposing counsel told the court it could not locate the cited cases, yet counsel kept standing by the citations after the court questioned them, so the outside challenge did not trigger a re-check.

What would likely have prevented it

  • Require every authority cited in a court filing to be retrieved from an official reporter or docket and read for its existence, holding and quoted language before the filing is signed.
  • Treat a generative AI tool as a source of research leads, not of authorities, and mark which citations came from it so they receive a full source check.

What would likely have caught it earlier

  • When an opposing party or the court says a cited authority cannot be found, have a supervising lawyer pull it from an official source before any reply is filed, rather than reaffirming the citation.

Related reading Treat AI Output Like an Unsupported Journal EntryMost Documented AI Failures Were Found by Someone Else

Key dates

  1. June 22, 2023Event
  2. October 16, 2026Checked against sources
  3. October 18, 2026Checked against sources
  4. October 21, 2026Checked against sources

Developments are added when the record is reviewed. Next review: October 16, 2027.

Evidence

Each passage is quoted from its source. The quoted passages are re-checked against the live pages every month.

  1. A penalty of $5,000 is jointly and severally imposed on Respondents and shall be paid into the Registry of this Court within 14 days of this Opinion and Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 6/22/2023)

    Supports: sanction amount, joint and several liability, date, judge

    Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 1:22-cv-01461 (docket) CourtListener (S.D.N.Y. docket) Primary source

  2. LoDuca, Steven A. Schwartz and the law firm of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C. (the "Levidow Firm") (collectively, "Respondents") abandoned their responsibilities when they submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT

    Supports: who was sanctioned (two lawyers and the firm); fabricated opinions created by ChatGPT

    Opinion and Order on Sanctions, Mata v. Avianca, Inc., ECF 54 U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. (via CourtListener RECAP) Primary source

  3. opposing counsel (ECF 24), the Court issued Orders requiring plaintiff's counsel to provide an affidavit annexing copies of certain judicial opinions of courts of record cited in his submission, and he has complied. (ECF 25, 27, 29.) Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions

    Supports: detection by opposing counsel; six bogus decisions

    Order to Show Cause, Mata v. Avianca, Inc., ECF 31 (4 May 2023) U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. (via CourtListener RECAP) Primary source

Suggested citation. Eminence Scan, “Mata v. Avianca: lawyers and firm sanctioned for ChatGPT-fabricated case citations”, Eminence Growth Solutions, last verified October 16, 2026, https://eminencegrowthsolutions.com/tools/eminence-scan/record/fail-001/.

Using our research: you may read and quote Eminence Scan with credit to “Eminence Scan, Eminence Growth Solutions” and a link; all other rights reserved. Terms: Using our research.

Spotted an error, or a development we have missed? Report a correction. How we check records: research methodology.