Stock Markets April 21, 2026 12:55 PM

Sullivan & Cromwell Apologizes After AI-Generated Errors Appeared in Court Filing

Top Wall Street firm says internal AI policies were not followed after mistaken citations and fabricated legal sources were submitted to bankruptcy court

By Avery Klein
Sullivan & Cromwell Apologizes After AI-Generated Errors Appeared in Court Filing

Sullivan & Cromwell acknowledged that a recent court filing contained inaccurate citations and other errors produced by artificial intelligence, apologizing to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. The firm said its AI use rules were not followed and that the mistakes - including so-called AI 'hallucinations' - were identified by opposing counsel, prompting a corrected filing.

Key Points

  • Sullivan & Cromwell apologized to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court after a filing contained inaccurate citations and other errors generated by AI.
  • The firm said its internal AI policies were not followed and a secondary review failed to identify the AI-generated inaccuracies; a corrected filing was later submitted.
  • The errors were discovered by opposing counsel, Boies Schiller Flexner, and the firms letter references broader judicial action against lawyers who use AI without fully vetting results; attorneys are ethically required to ensure the accuracy of submissions.

Sullivan & Cromwell, one of the nations leading corporate law firms, has formally apologized to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan after acknowledging that a filing contained inaccurate citations and other errors generated by artificial intelligence. The apology, sent in a letter dated April 18, was addressed to Martin Glenn, chief judge of the court.

In the letter, Andrew Dietderich, co-head of the firms global restructuring group, said the mistakes included what he described as AI "hallucinations" - instances where the technology produced invented case citations, misquoted legal authority, or cited non-existent sources. Dietderich wrote that the errors were identified by opposing counsel in the matter, the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, and that he had contacted that firm to thank them and apologize directly.

"I apologize on behalf of our entire team. I also called Boies Schiller Flexner LLP on Friday to thank them for bringing this matter to our attention and to apologize directly to them as well," Dietderich wrote.

The letter does not disclose which AI program was used to assist in producing the filing. Dietderich and a representative of Sullivan & Cromwell did not immediately respond to requests for comment, according to the correspondence.

Sullivan & Cromwell told the judge that it maintains "comprehensive policies and training requirements governing the use of AI tools in legal work" intended to reduce the risk of such mistakes. However, the letter made clear that those established policies were not followed in this instance, and that the secondary review process also failed to detect the inaccurate citations generated by the AI. The firm subsequently filed a corrected version of the submission.


The episode comes amid growing judicial scrutiny of attorneys use of artificial intelligence. The letter noted that U.S. judges have sanctioned lawyers in dozens of cases after attorneys relied on AI for legal research and drafting without sufficiently verifying the outputs. While the use of AI by lawyers is not expressly prohibited, attorneys remain ethically obligated to ensure the accuracy of documents submitted to courts.

Sullivan & Cromwell, headquartered in New York and employing more than 900 lawyers, is widely regarded for its work in mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance litigation and private equity. In the New York case at issue, the firm represents foreign representatives involved in the wind-down of Prince Global Holdings Limited, a Cambodian conglomerate.

Prince Globals founder and chairman, Chen Zhi, has been charged in Brooklyn federal court with allegedly directing forced labor compounds in Cambodia and with orchestrating a large-scale investment fraud, according to the court matter. Prince Group previously issued a statement denying wrongdoing and calling the allegations baseless. The groups representative could not be immediately reached for comment in connection with the filing error.

Boies Schiller Flexner is representing a group of objecting debtors in the bankruptcy proceedings. A Boies Schiller attorney involved in the case did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the identification of the AI-generated errors.

The Sullivan & Cromwell incident underscores persistent challenges firms face as they integrate AI tools into legal workflows - including ensuring compliance with internal policies and conducting thorough human review to catch fabrications or misstatements produced by automated systems.

Risks

  • Risk of legal sanction or reputational harm for firms that use AI tools without adequate review - this primarily affects the legal sector and corporate governance practices.
  • Potential for inaccurate or fabricated legal authorities to influence court proceedings if AI outputs are not thoroughly vetted - impacting parties involved in litigation and bankruptcy cases.
  • Operational risk that internal policies and secondary review processes may fail to catch AI errors, highlighting compliance and oversight vulnerabilities within law firms and corporate legal departments.

More from Stock Markets

Deutsche Telekom in early talks to combine fully with T-Mobile, sources say Apr 21, 2026 Deutsche Telekom Weighs Full Combination With T-Mobile US in Potential Record Telecom Tie-Up Apr 21, 2026 Meta to Deploy Desktop Monitoring Tool to Gather Employee Interaction Data for AI Training Apr 21, 2026 Pentagon Drops Universal Flu-Vaccine Requirement for U.S. Service Members Apr 21, 2026 PlusAI and Churchill Capital Corp IX Call Off Merger, Company Plans Private Fundraise Apr 21, 2026