A federal judge has sanctioned a lawyer representing one of Sean “Diddy” Combs’s accusers after finding that court filings submitted in the case relied on artificial intelligence and cited legal authorities that do not exist.

In a sharply worded order, the judge said the attorney had included multiple “hallucinated” case citations — a term used to describe false or fabricated information generated by AI tools — in legal briefs filed before the court. The judge noted that the cases cited could not be located in any recognised legal database and appeared to have been invented by generative AI software. 

The incident emerged during routine judicial scrutiny of filings connected to a civil lawsuit involving allegations against the music mogul. While the court did not question the underlying allegations in the case at this stage, it expressed serious concern about the integrity of the legal submissions made by the accuser’s counsel.

“The use of artificial intelligence does not excuse an attorney from the duty to ensure that every citation and factual assertion presented to the court is accurate,” the judge said, adding that lawyers remain fully responsible for verifying their work, regardless of the tools used to prepare it.

As a consequence, the court imposed sanctions on the attorney, including a financial penalty and an order requiring the lawyer to notify relevant disciplinary authorities. The judge also warned that future violations of this nature could result in harsher consequences, including potential restrictions on practising before the court.

The ruling adds to a growing list of cases in which courts across the United States have reprimanded lawyers for improper use of AI in legal work. Over the past two years, several judges have issued standing orders requiring attorneys to disclose whether AI was used in drafting filings and to certify that all citations have been independently verified.

Legal ethics experts say the case underscores the risks of uncritical reliance on generative AI in high-stakes litigation. While such tools can assist with research and drafting, they are known to produce plausible-sounding but inaccurate information if not carefully checked.

The decision comes at a time when the legal profession is grappling with how to responsibly integrate AI into practice. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that innovation cannot come at the cost of accuracy, professionalism, and respect for judicial processes.

For now, the judge made clear, AI may be a tool — but accountability remains strictly human.