Song Dow Lee, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, et al.
C.D. California · May 7, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- C.D. California
- Record ID
- song-dow-lee-et-al-v-hsbc-bank-usa-national-association-et-al-2026-05-07
- Observed outcome
- The court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring counsel to justify their actions and explain their research verification process, with potential sanctions of $2,500 or case dismissal.
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,500
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring plaintiffs' counsel to explain why they should not be sanctioned $2,500 or have the case dismissed for submitting fabricated citations and misrepresenting case law. The court explicitly ordered counsel to disclose whether AI was used in drafting the filings and to detail their verification process for the cited legal authorities.
The court reasoned that counsel's inclusion of non-existent citations and misrepresentation of case law, which persisted even after being flagged by the opposing party, necessitated an inquiry into the drafting process and the adequacy of counsel's research verification.
This case highlights the judicial response to the submission of AI-generated or poorly verified legal research. It underscores the court's expectation that counsel must independently verify the existence and accuracy of all cited authorities, regardless of the drafting tools employed.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- Ordered To Show Cause
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,500
- Procedural posture
- Order to Show Cause issued by the court on May 7, 2026, following the submission of filings containing fabricated and misrepresented case law.
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 ordered counsel to address whether AI was used.
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.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.