Mohamed Hussain et al. v. Mansoor Quraishi et al.
Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville · Conn. Super. Ct. · Connecticut bar guidance
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Mohamed Hussain v. Mansoor Quraishi, No. TTD-CV25-5019431-S, 2026 WL 948918 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 31, 2026) (Graff, J.)
- Decided
- March 31, 2026
Summary
Defendant Mansoor Quraishi, appearing pro se as an attorney in a defamation action brought by his former business associates, filed a special motion to dismiss under Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute (Gen. Stat. section 52-196a) supported by a brief that contained eight problematic case citations: cases that did not exist, quotations that did not exist, and citations that were wrong. On March 4, 2026, Judge Sheila A. Graff issued an order to show cause requiring Attorney Quraishi to explain how the brief was prepared, whether generative AI was used, and which platform. At the March 18, 2026 hearing, Quraishi admitted he had used AI to write the motion and elected to rest on the statutory framework rather than the AI-generated authorities.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
No monetary sanction was imposed in this order. The court considered the special motion to dismiss without the AI-generated portions of the brief, then denied the motion on the merits in its March 31, 2026 memorandum of decision. The court declined to award the plaintiffs attorney's fees under section 52-196a(f)(2), finding that although the motion was denied, the record did not show it was frivolous and solely intended to cause delay.
Why does Mohamed Hussain et al. v. Mansoor Quraishi et al. matter for law firms using AI?
Hussain illustrates how courts are increasingly probing not just for sanctions but for transparency: a Connecticut judge issued an order to show cause that required counsel to explain on the record whether generative AI was used and which platform. For a managing partner, the lesson is that even pro se attorney litigants who skip independent verification face public admission and a judicial finding of AI-generated hallucinations, regardless of whether a monetary sanction follows. The court here imposed no fine, but the docket and Westlaw citation now permanently link Attorney Quraishi’s name to fabricated authorities.
Sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.