AI Darwin Awards

Submitting a legal brief with four entirely fictional cases is a jaw-dropping failure of the most basic professional duty to verify sources.

The lawyer's belief that using a second AI to 'validate' the first AI's fabrications would lead to accuracy is a legendary display of arrogance and misunderstanding.

The case became a national incident within the legal community, serving as a stark warning and prompting a judicial rebuke.

The potential for harm was primarily to the client's immigration case, which could have life-altering consequences, but without a direct physical threat.

This lawyer pioneered a bold new legal strategy: if one AI's hallucinations aren't enough, add a second AI to double-down on the fiction. Their touching faith in a recursive validation loop of pure invention demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of both law and technology. The act of submitting a legal filing based entirely on imaginary precedents is a special kind of professional negligence. It serves as a powerful lesson that two artificial wrongs don't make a legal right, and that the most fundamental task of a lawyer—checking one's sources—cannot be outsourced to a machine that dreams.