On October 30, a filing was submitted to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which could result in guidance from the state’s second highest court on the growing issue of AI use in court filings.[1] The case that could bring this guidance to light is a negligence lawsuit filed against the City of Raleigh in 2024.[2] The case involves Plaintiff Michael Creech, who was struck by a tree branch, paralyzing him from the waist down, while visiting a park in Raleigh in 2022, which the Plaintiff alleges occurred due to the city’s lack of maintenance or removal of the tree.[3] In January 2025, the case was dismissed, and the Plaintiff appealed.[4]
The problems with AI began on appeal, where counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellant cited to two fictitious cases in his brief.[5] This was brought to the court’s attention through the Defendants-Appellees’ brief, where the senior associate city attorney stated that “The Court should view Plaintiff-Appellant’s principal brief with extreme skepticism. In attempt to show error in the trial court’s decision, Plaintiff-Appellant … cites to and relies upon multiple fictitious cases to support his baseless arguments.”[6] Plaintiff-Appellant’s counsel responded by acknowledging and accepting responsibility for the two false citations, stating that it was not his intention to deceive the court or opposing counsel, and that it was the result of an inadvertent error from a licensed contract attorney utilizing the software “Vincent AI” in preliminary research.[7] Subsequently, the Plaintiff-Appellant moved for leave to amend the brief on October 21.[8]
The motion for leave to amend prompted the recent reply from the city, urging the North Carolina Court of Appeals to “view this as opportunity to deter future practitioners from overreliance on artificial intelligence tools for legal research and writing without independent verification prior to Court submission.”[9] Currently, there are no appellate court decisions addressing the issue of using AI-generated cases that do not exist in court filings in North Carolina; thus, potential guidance or a decision on this issue from the Court of Appeals could offer more instruction for practitioners across the state on the consequences of over-reliance on artificial intelligence tools.[10] Especially, given the current climate of today’s technologically focused society, where this specific issue seems ever more prevalent. For instance, a study conducted by Thomson Reuters Westlaw found that just between June 30 and August 1 of this year, twenty-two different cases were found where citations hallucinated by AI sources were used within various filings, many of these instances resulting in disciplinary motions or even sanctions.[11] Additionally, more than 120 cases of AI hallucinations in court filings have been identified since mid-2023.[12] This rise of the usage of AI tools by legal practitioners and the hallucinations they can bring, illustrates the importance of the North Carolina Court of Appeals potentially utilizing this opportunity in Creech v. City of Raleigh to step in.
Despite the lack of appellate decisions on point for this issue, the North Carolina State Bar has previously addressed the ethical dilemmas that AI tools can present in the legal profession.[13] Specifically, in its 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, the state bar concluded that lawyers are permitted to use AI tools in the practice of law, however lawyers must do so competently, securely, and that it is the “lawyer’s responsibility to exercise her independent professional judgment” in determining how or whether to use them, all in order to act in accordance with the rules of professional conduct.[14] Furthermore, the North Carolina State Bar also noted that “AI and its work product can be inaccurate or unreliable” despite any perceptions to the contrary.[15]
If the court decides to issue guidance on the use of AI in court filings, the court could take a variety of approaches in doing so. The court could look to the North Carolina State Bar’s guidance, and reiterate that AI tools may be used, but only in a responsible manner as to further adherence to the rule of competent representation. On the other hand, the North Carolina Court of Appeals may also take a more aggressive approach and provide potential consequences for the inclusion of AI-hallucinated cases in court filings, as other courts around the country have done.[16] For instance, the District of New Mexico has warned that filings that contained AI-hallucinated cases “may result in sanctions such as the pleading being stricken, filing restrictions imposed, or the case being dismissed.”[17] Similarly, the District of Wyoming imposed Rule 11 sanctions and a monetary fine on an attorney who included a non-existent case hallucinated by AI in a court filing.[18]
Ultimately, as this is an issue of first impression at the appellate level in the state of North Carolina, if the court decides to use the opportunity to provide guidance on the issue of AI use in court filings, such a decision from the state’s second highest court could be crucial for practitioners’ understanding statewide. Especially as it relates to the proper usage, or the consequences for improper usage, of this rapidly developing technology in the legal field going forward.
[1] See City-Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Brief, Creech v. City of Raleigh, No. COA 25-513 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2025).
[2] See Complaint, Creech v. City of Raleigh, No. 24CV021993-910 (Wake Cnty. Super. Ct. July 15, 2024).
[3] See id. at 3, 13.
[4] Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Creech v. City of Raleigh, No. 24CV021993-910 (Wake Cnty. Super. Ct. Jan. 7, 2025); see Notice of Appeal, Creech v. City of Raleigh, No. 24CV021993-910 (Wake Cnty. Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2025).
[5] Brief of Defendants-Appellees City of Raleigh, Zach Manor, and Anthony McLamb at 2, Creech v. City of Raleigh, No. COA 25-513 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2025).
[6] Id.
[7] Reply Brief of Appellant at 2, Creech v. City of Raleigh, No. COA 25-513 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2025); see Notice of Correction to Appellant’s Brief at 8, 9, Creech v. City of Raleigh, No. COA 25-513 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2025).
[8] See Motion for Leave to File Amended Appellant’s Brief, Creech v. City of Raleigh, No. COA 25-513 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2025).
[9] City-Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Brief at 3, Creech v. City of Raleigh, No. COA 25-513 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2025).
[10] Id. at 2; Brief of Defendants-Appellees City of Raleigh, Zach Manor, and Anthony McLamb at 2 n.2, Creech, No. COA 25-513.
[11] Zach Warren, GenAI Hallucinations Are Still Pervasive in Legal Filings, but Better Lawyering Is the Cure, Thomson Reuters (Aug. 18, 2025), https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/technology/genai-hallucinations/.
[12] Justin S. Daniels & Matthew G. White, The Perils of Legal Hallucinations and the Need for AI Training for Your In-House Legal Team!, Baker Donelson (June 30, 2025), https://www.bakerdonelson.com/the-perils-of-legal-hallucinations-and-the-need-for-ai-training-for-your-in-house-legal-team.
[13] N.C. State Bar, Formal Ethics Op. 1 (2024).
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] See ByoPlanet Int’l, L.L.C. v. Johansson, No. 25-CV-60630, 2025 WL 2091025 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2025) (imposing substantial sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel for using AI-hallucinated case law); see Morgan v. Cmty. Against Violence, No. 23-CV-353-WPJ/JMR, 2023 WL 6976510, at *8 (D.N.M. Oct. 23, 2023) (warning AI-hallucinated cases in filings may result in sanctions); see Wadsworth v. Walmart, Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489, 499 (D. Wyo. 2025) (imposing sanctions against counsel for use of AI-hallucinated case law).
[17] Morgan, 2023 WL 6976510, at *8.
[18] Wadsworth, 348 F.R.D. at 499.
