South Korea's Supreme Court has now put numbers on a problem that many courts have so far described only anecdotally. It surveyed 360 judges between 6 and 16 October and published the results on 2 November. About 80% of the judges handling civil, family and administrative cases said they had seen filings that cited rulings that do not exist or misstated real ones. 196 of them (80.7%) had seen invented rulings, 159 (65.4%) distorted rulings, 41 (16.9%) false laws and 10 (4.1%) fake academic sources. [1][2]
Most of the fake citations came from people representing themselves: 164 judges (69.5%) named the parties, and 136 (57.6%) said lawyers had submitted them. Examples included an AI-generated "judgment" that copied the Supreme Court's format, real-looking case numbers that led to no ruling, and filings that still contained the user's chat with the AI. 91.7% of respondents want institutional measures. The most popular are fines (61.4%) and a duty to verify citations (61.1%). The National Court Administration says it will consult the Ministry of Justice on changes to civil and criminal procedure law and send its views to the National Assembly. [1][3] Yonhap's English version says those 164 judges had "themselves" cited false precedents. The Korean original and other Korean outlets say these judges named the litigants, and we follow the Korean original. [1][2][3]
Brazil shows the next stage: lawyers trying to manipulate the AI that courts use themselves. On 20 October the First Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) fined the lawyers in one appeal R$20,000. Court staff had found hidden text in the filing, printed in white or in the colour of a footer stripe, telling an AI system to declare the appeal admissible and rule for their client. The court referred the case to the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) and to federal prosecutors. Justice Paulo Sérgio Domingues said hidden text aimed at a machine "does not become loyal" just because it failed. The appeal itself was rejected. [4][5]
Labour courts had already acted. In São Paulo, a judge fined two lawyers ten times the minimum wage after the court's drafting system, Galileu, found a hidden instruction asking for a ruling against the claim (court notice of 14 July). In Parauapebas, in the state of Pará, a judge fined two lawyers 10% of the claim's value over a hidden command telling any AI to contest the petition "superficially" (reported 13 May). [6][7]