BlogLine

Georgia court confronts lawyers’ apparent use of AI

7/17/25

By: P. Michael Freed

Courts throughout the country have been wrestling with litigants’ use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in drafting legal briefs. Courts have discovered citations to fictitious cases in parties’ legal briefs in several highly publicized cases. The Court of Appeals of Georgia is the latest court to confront the issue.  

Shahid v. Essam involved an appeal from a trial court order in a divorce case denying the wife’s petition to reopen the case and to set aside a final judgment in the husband’s favor. It came to light during the appeal that the husband’s lawyer had cited fictitious cases in opposing the wife’s motion. The trial court incorporated two of those citations into its order. The husband’s lawyer compounded the problem by citing additional fake cases in his appellate brief, including cases purporting to hold that a party can recover attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14. Longstanding precedent holds to the contrary.  

The Court of Appeals was rightly “troubled” by what it suspected to be the use of generative AI as the source of fake case citations. The court noted that “there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance.” But attorneys remain responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their filings. They abandon that responsibility when they cite nonexistent AI-generated cases and deprive the opposing party of the opportunity to respond appropriately. Ultimately, the court imposed a $2,500 penalty against the husband’s attorney, the maximum amount the court’s rules allow.  

Shahid provides yet another warning to attorneys about the use of generative AI in drafting legal briefs. Ethical uses of that technology may exist. But attorneys must stay diligent in ensuring that their filings accurately represent the law and its supporting authority.  

For more information, please contact P. Michael Freed at michael.freed@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.