Colorado Court of Appeals Issues First Warning on Generative AI Misuse

In Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its first published opinion addressing generative AI misuse in legal filings. According to an article by Jacob Hollars, partner at Spencer Fane, the case serves as a cautionary tale for lawyers and pro se litigants in Colorado, warning of potential sanctions for citing “hallucinated” cases generated by AI without verification. 

This ruling aligns with national trends highlighting the risks of generative AI in legal practice. Hollars emphasizes the broader industry impact, advocating for diligence in verifying citations and leveraging AI-powered tools to ensure accuracy.

Case History

Pro se litigant Al-Hamim sued Star Hearthstone, LLC, for breach of the warranty of habitability. The district court dismissed his complaint, prompting Al-Hamim to appeal. In his appellate brief, Al-Hamim cited eight fictitious cases generated by AI. When the Court of Appeals identified these as non-existent, it ordered Al-Hamim to explain or face sanctions. He admitted to using generative AI, acknowledged the errors, and apologized, taking full responsibility.

Judge’s Ruling

The Court determined that citing fake cases violates Rule 28(a)(7)(B) of the Colorado Appellate Rules, which mandates accurate citation. However, it declined to sanction Al-Hamim, citing his contrition, lack of precedent for pro se sanctions in Colorado, and opposing counsel’s failure to highlight the issue. The Court warned future litigants of potential sanctions for similar infractions.

Analysis and Takeaways

Hollars underscores the heightened scrutiny of generative AI misuse in legal filings, urging lawyers to verify citations meticulously. He highlights AI-driven tools that flag fake or misapplied authorities and recommends their routine use to safeguard against errors. 

Hollars also stresses the importance of challenging opposing parties’ citations to ensure judicial integrity, noting that proactive steps can influence court outcomes. This case reinforces the necessity of professional diligence in an era of AI-driven legal work.