Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as trustee) · Governance finding · severity 2 of 5
In September 2026 the District of Columbia Court of Appeals struck the appellate brief filed for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, acting as trustee in a judicial foreclosure appeal (No. 24-CV-1099), because it cited four cases that do not exist. According to the court's published order of 3 September 2026, a lawyer at the bank's outside law firm, McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, admitted she had used Google's generative AI search tool to find case authority and did not verify the citations. The court had issued a show-cause order on 22 June 2026, called the matter "a cautionary tale" and referred it to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The AI was used by the bank's outside counsel, not by a Deutsche Bank system; no comment from Deutsche Bank has been reported.
Record last reviewed Oct 21, 2026 · Markdown
Date
Jun 22, 2026 · disclosed Sep 3, 2026
Country
United States
AI system
Google generative AI search tool · Generative AI search used by the bank's outside counsel for legal research · vendor: Google
AI?
Described as AI by the institution or regulator
The institution, a regulator or a court called the system AI.
Category
Status
Court filing
Severity
2 of 5
Impact
No customer harm reported · The bank unit lost its appellee brief in the foreclosure appeal; the court said the client is left without a credible advocate when its brief is struck. The underlying appeal had not been decided when WJLA reported on 11 September 2026.
What happened?
The appeal arose from a D.C. Superior Court judgment on the pleadings for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006-OPT3, in a judicial foreclosure against a self-represented homeowner. The bank unit was represented by the law firm McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC, and the appeal was submitted without argument on 11 March 2026. Reviewing the appellee's brief, the court found "multiple citations to cases that the court was unable to locate or confirm as legitimate".[1][2]
On 22 June 2026 the court ordered the appellee to show cause "why the court should not strike its brief for citing nonexistent cases that are possibly the product of artificial intelligence (AI) hallucinations." The next day one of the firm's attorneys responded, confirmed that four cited authorities did not exist, and explained that she had "used Google's generative artificial intelligence search tool to assist in locating case authority" without verifying them. The court said she had since left the firm.[1]
The firm then responded for the bank unit, saying it had been "unaware" of the attorney's actions, that its policy bars employees from using AI in "drafting of any legal correspondence or documents", and that it was "genuinely remorseful for this failure". The court called the firm's account "surprising, to say the least", noted that two other attorneys were listed on the brief, and said "every firm attorney who signed the brief bears some responsibility." It rejected the firm's suggestion to accept the brief with the fake citations redacted.[1][4]
Reuters and the ABA Journal reported that the D.C. Court of Appeals, the District's highest local court, said this was the first time it had received a brief containing fabricated citations. In a concurrence, Senior Judge Stephen Glickman wrote that striking the brief was "an appropriate but comparatively weak response that unfortunately penalizes the innocent client for its counsel's offense", and that the court's rules appear to leave it little direct power to sanction the lawyers.[1][2][3]
When did it happen?
- Mar 11, 2026
The foreclosure appeal is submitted to the D.C. Court of Appeals for decision without oral argument.[1]
- Jun 22, 2026
The court orders the bank unit to show cause why its brief should not be struck for citing nonexistent, possibly AI-hallucinated cases.[1]
- Jun 23, 2026
The responsible attorney confirms four citations did not exist and says she used Google's generative AI search tool without verifying them.[1]
- Sep 3, 2026
Published order strikes the brief in full and refers the matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel; the sanctions question goes to the court's Rules Committee.[1][2]
What was the impact?
- Customers: No customer harm reported[1][4]
- Other: The bank unit lost its appellee brief in the foreclosure appeal; the court said the client is left without a credible advocate when its brief is struck. The underlying appeal had not been decided when WJLA reported on 11 September 2026.[1][4]
Severity 2 of 5: Limited harm: a court sanction (the bank unit's appellate brief was struck and the matter referred to disciplinary counsel) caused by its outside lawyers' unverified use of generative AI; no customer harm, money loss or regulatory finding against the bank.
How did Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as trustee) respond?
No public statement from Deutsche Bank found as of 2026-10-21; Reuters said Deutsche Bank and the attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In its court filing the outside law firm said it was "genuinely remorseful for this failure" and intended to take measures so this "type of situation" never occurs again.[1][2]
What was the outcome, and did regulators act?
The court struck the appellee's brief, referred the matter to the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel for any investigation it deems appropriate, and referred the scope of its own sanctions authority to its Rules Committee. No disciplinary outcome has been reported.[1][3]
Did Deutsche Bank use AI to write its court brief?
No bank system was involved. According to the D.C. Court of Appeals order of 3 September 2026, a lawyer at Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's outside law firm, McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, used Google's generative AI search tool to find case law and did not check the four citations it produced.
What did the court do about the AI-hallucinated citations?
It struck the bank unit's entire appellee brief, rejected the firm's offer to redact the fake citations instead, referred the matter to the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and sent the question of its sanctions powers to its Rules Committee. A concurring judge noted the sanction falls on the client.
Was anyone harmed by the Deutsche Bank AI brief?
No customer harm or money loss has been reported. The harm the court described was to the appeal itself: it spent time investigating the fake cases, and the bank unit, as trustee for a mortgage trust, was left without a brief in a foreclosure appeal that had not been decided as of September 2026.
Has Deutsche Bank commented on the struck brief?
No public statement from Deutsche Bank was found as of 21 October 2026. Reuters reported that Deutsche Bank, the attorney and the law firm did not immediately respond; the firm told the court it was remorseful and would take measures to prevent a repeat.
- Published Order, No. 24-CV-1099 (Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., as trustee, appellee) court
- DC court faults lawyers for Deutsche Bank subsidiary over AI hallucination news
- DC appeals court blames Deutsche Bank lawyers for AI hallucinations news
- DC court strikes brief after lawyer cites four AI-generated cases that did not exist news
When AI goes wrong at a bank, the next morning's brief says so.
when one of these regulators moves, the next morning's brief says so · six sourced stories · 7 am PT · free
plus every regulation, bank and agent page update, the morning after · leave any morning