AI Hallucinations in Pennsylvania Courts Raise National Questions About Tech and Judicial Integrity

By Michael Phillips | NYBayNews

A growing controversy in Pennsylvania’s court system is becoming a cautionary tale for courts nationwide: when artificial intelligence is used without strict verification, the rule of law itself is put at risk.

According to a January 7, 2026 investigation by Spotlight PA, judges across Pennsylvania are increasingly encountering “AI hallucinations” — fabricated case law, misquoted opinions, and nonexistent legal precedents — in court filings. The issue gained prominence after a dramatic exchange in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court late last year.

During oral arguments in South Side Area School District et al. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, Judge Matthew Wolf directly confronted attorneys over a brief riddled with errors, including fabricated quotations attributed to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case. The judge openly questioned whether the filing contained “AI hallucinations,” noting that the court had been forced to spend substantial time verifying material that should have been reliable.

The attorneys involved apologized and denied using AI to draft the filing, though ambiguity remains around AI-assisted research tools. The court is now considering sanctions, fines, or referrals to disciplinary authorities.

A Broader Governance Problem

Researchers tracking AI-related legal errors identified at least 13 Pennsylvania cases in 2025 alone involving suspected or confirmed hallucinations — most from self-represented litigants, but some from licensed attorneys. Penalties have included warnings, monetary fines, and dismissed lawsuits.

Legal experts warn the consequences could extend far beyond individual cases. Once false precedents enter judicial opinions, they risk corrupting future rulings and weakening public trust in institutions designed to be authoritative and fact-based.

From a governance perspective, the Pennsylvania experience highlights a national challenge: technological adoption has outpaced institutional safeguards. Courts, legislatures, and professional bodies are now grappling with how to preserve credibility while allowing innovation.

For New York and other states watching closely, the lesson is clear: efficiency cannot come at the expense of accuracy. In the justice system, there is no margin for “close enough.”