Slay v. Ross
CA Georgia · Mar 9, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Georgia
- Record ID
- slay-v-ross-2026-03-09
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and issued a formal warning to counsel regarding the submission of hallucinated citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Georgia Court of Appeals issued a warning to counsel after identifying four fabricated case citations in an appellate brief. The court explicitly linked these hallucinations to the irresponsible use of generative AI and noted the counsel's history of similar conduct in other litigation.
The court reasoned that the inclusion of fictitious cases is a hallmark of irresponsible AI use. It determined that while the fictitious citations did not impede the opposing party's ability to respond in this specific instance, the conduct was nonetheless improper and part of a broader pattern of deficient filings by the same counsel.
Four fabricated citations in one brief is a pattern, not a typo; require a verification log before any appellate filing leaves the firm.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Family
- Appellate
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative Artificial Intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of trial court orders regarding child custody, visitation, and contempt.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court attributed the hallucinations to the use of generative artificial intelligence.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.