hof van beroep gent (11de kamer) — appeal record noting possible AI use and fictitious legal sources

Unknown / Not Disclosed (suspected) fake case citationfake quote or pinpointno human verification

I. Executive Summary

The Court of Appeal noted that a party’s submissions included numerous references to decisions that do not exist and incorrect quotations/attributions. The party acknowledged that the cited sources were not checked and stated that “possible use of AI applications” could explain the errors. The court stated it would not take the fictitious sources into account and signaled that the issue would be discussed in the proceedings.

II. Conduct Analysis

A party filed written submissions containing multiple non-existent case citations and incorrect quotations; the party admitted the sources had not been verified and invoked possible AI use as an explanation.

III. Legal Foundations

Applicable procedural rules and judicial ethics codes.

IV. Key Facts

1) The record highlights multiple citations to non-existent case-law and incorrect quotations/attributions in the written submissions. 2) The party acknowledged the sources were not checked and referenced possible AI use as an explanation. 3) The court stated it would disregard the fictitious sources.

V. Consequences & Sanction

1) Fictitious legal sources were disregarded by the court. 2) The AI-related issue was flagged for discussion in the ongoing debate, but the excerpt does not show a separate sanction being imposed.