OOF-AII-770685
State Farm Defense Counsel Acknowledged AI-Assisted Filings in Meni-Siliga v. A's Contractor, Inc. Contained Fabricated Legal Authorities
In Fa'alagilagi Meni-Siliga v. A's Contractor, Inc., et al., attorneys representing State Farm acknowledged that AI-assisted motions contained fabricated and otherwise inaccurate legal authorities. Attorney Jacquelene Robinson said she used the legal AI tool Irys and failed to verify some citations. Opposing counsel identified the errors, after which the firm apologized and filed corrected versions.
- Event date
- 2026-03-31
- Country
- Location not specified
- Severity
- Moderate
- Evidence state
- Single-source
Assessment status
Generated from available public incident evidence using OOF® governance methodology. It is not an official investigation, legal determination, regulatory finding, certification, or OOF® Approved Assessment.
View source record from AI Incident Database (Responsible AI Collaborative)
Assessment confidence dimensions
- Source corroboration
- Single-source
- Extraction completeness
- Moderate
- Methodological assignment confidence
- High
Measures source-group corroboration only; it does not establish factual truth.
Measures populated source fields after deterministic normalization; it does not measure correctness.
Measures automated assignment support; substantive correctness requires authorized human review.
Known facts from the incident record
- The incident record identifies the event date as 2026-03-31.
Reported claims
- In Fa'alagilagi Meni-Siliga v. A's Contractor, Inc., et al., attorneys representing State Farm acknowledged that AI-assisted motions contained fabricated and otherwise inaccurate legal authorities. Attorney Jacquelene Robinson said she used the legal AI tool Irys and failed to verify some citations. Opposing counsel identified the errors, after which the firm apologized and filed corrected versions.
Material unknowns
- Independent corroboration is not established in the available incident record.
Primary governance problem
The incident appears to expose a governance problem involving state, evidence, integrity, validation. Available reporting supports preliminary methodological interpretation, not a finding of fault or non-compliance.
Architecture intelligence
INTEGROS® — Integrity Governance Architecture
Primary architecture
The reported state, evidence, integrity concern falls within the governed questions represented by INTEGROS® — Integrity Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should state, evidence, integrity be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Canonical methodology (ParentStandard):
PGA™ — Prediction Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported state, evidence, identified concern falls within the governed questions represented by PGA™ — Prediction Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: What assumptions must hold for the prediction and its stated probability, confidence, feasibility, or expected outcome to remain meaningful?
Canonical methodology (ParentStandard):
LIGA™ — Liability Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported state, identified, evidence concern falls within the governed questions represented by LIGA™ — Liability Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: What is the current governed state of Liability, and how may that state legitimately change?
Canonical methodology (ParentStandard):
MGIA™ — Memory Governance Intelligence Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported state, integrity concern falls within the governed questions represented by MGIA™ — Memory Governance Intelligence Architecture.
Governance focus: How should state, integrity be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
Preliminary governance questions
- How should state, evidence, integrity be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- What assumptions must hold for the prediction and its stated probability, confidence, feasibility, or expected outcome to remain meaningful?
- What is the current governed state of Liability, and how may that state legitimately change?
- How should state, integrity be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- What operational authority and controls applied to Musick Peeler And Garrett Llp, Legal Professionals, Lawyers, Law Firms, Jacquelene Robinson at the relevant time?
Evidence gaps and limitations
- Only one independent source group is represented; corroboration is not established.
- Country could not be resolved from the available evidence.
- AI technology is not specified in the source record.
- industry is not specified in the source record.
- AI system type is not specified in the source record.