RelFest Judicial Panel Offers Practical View on Hallucinated Citations

# What happened at RelFest Relativity's conference opened with a judicial panel featuring several judges experienced with electronic discovery and generative systems. The panel discussed how courts and lawyers are encountering hallucinated citations produced by those systems. Instead of alarmist reactions, the judges offered a grounded view based on what they see in everyday practice.

# The common reaction—and why it falls short The prevailing commentary outside the courtroom has been simple: hallucinations are rampant and the solution is punishment for any lawyer who files one. That view assumes lawyers are careless or intentionally deceptive. The judges on the panel rejected that black-and-white framing. They described the real-world pressures that lead to errors: tight deadlines, heavy delegation, clients demanding lower bills, and the routine reliance on colleagues and law clerks for research.

# Two practical judicial points

• "We all make mistakes." Judge William Matthewman framed the issue as human error that will happen in any legal practice. His recommendation: if a lawyer files a hallucinated citation, own it. Disclose the error, withdraw the pleading if needed, and offer to pay opposing counsel's costs. That response treats the matter as remediable rather than purely punitive.

• The frequency illusion. Judge Allison Goddard noted that while hallucinations get a lot of attention, the number of filings with fabricated citations is small relative to the millions of filings each year. Scale matters: policy responses and sanctions should reflect how common the problem actually is.

# Why behavior must change, and what that looks like

Practical adjustments discussed by the panel include:

• Requiring whoever signs a brief to verify the accuracy of key authorities.
• Treating hallucinations as mistakes to remedy quickly rather than immediate grounds for extreme sanctions in every case.
• Using cost-shifting when a false citation imposes real extra work on opposing counsel.

# A measured path forward The panel's tone was corrective but realistic. The judges urged the profession to accept that hallucinated citations will occur, to respond promptly and transparently when they do, and to adapt ordinary practice norms so verification becomes routine. That approach aims to preserve access to helpful technology while reducing the risk of misinformation in filings.

# Bottom line Hallucinated citations should neither be dismissed as mere laziness nor treated as automatic professional suicide for the lawyers involved. The courtroom response should emphasize correction, proportional cost remedies, and changes to internal review practices that reflect the actual pressures of legal work.