Two lawyers just got sanctioned by a federal appeals court for filing AI made up cases

Saw the Reuters piece from earlier this month and it stuck with me. A US appeals court sanctioned two lawyers for filing briefs full of cases that do not exist, the kind that came out of a chatbot. The court called it a lack of candor, which is the polite version. What gets me is this is not the first time and clearly not the last. There is a whole database tracking these now, over a thousand entries. The pattern is always the same. The model writes something that reads like a real citation, the lawyer does not check it, the filing goes in, and somewhere downstream a judge or opposing counsel actually looks it up and the whole thing collapses. By then the damage to the lawyer is done. What people keep missing is that asking the model to double check itself does not help. The same blind spot that invented the case is the one doing the review. It will confidently confirm its own fiction. I have been poking at this from the research side and the only setup that actually catches it is when the verification is done by something that did not write the answer in the first place, a separate pass with fresh sources. There are a couple of systems built around that idea now, apodex is the one I keep seeing cited because it makes the verifier a different agent team from the one that reasoned, but the principle matters more than the brand. If the checker shares context with the writer you are back to self grading. For anyone in a regulated field the practical lesson is boring. Treat every citation a model hands you as unverified until a human or an independent check confirms it exists and says what the model claims. The sanctions are not going to slow down, the tools are getting faster and the courts are getting less patient.