I have noticed something that ParkerGPT has done to me on several occasions. It will read a reference to case law made in a brief/filing by the plaintiff and reference it in a response brief that it drafts for me, but when it cites it, the full name of the case is not included or sometimes no case name at all.
Has anyone else run into this?
Community · questions · feedback
ParkerGPT Improperly Cites Case Law that it's referencing in Response Briefs
Luke · July 20, 2026
2 replies
Luke · July 20, 2026
For instance, in LVNV's Motion to Dismiss my amended answer and counterclaim they say this:
"[19] Such Response was more than sufficient under the statute. The requirements of 15 U.S.C 1692g(b) prevent "debt collectors from dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid." Haddad n. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fiorito, PPLC, 758 F.3 777, 782 (6th Cir. 2024). "
Now there are several typos in the Plaintiff's citation there. It's actually Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, PLLC, 758 F.3d 777, 782. But even when I type that in, ParkerGPT keeps operating like it doesn't "see" the Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, PLLC part of the citation. then it says that it can't find case 758 F.3d 777, 782. I keep giving it the full name, but when it repeats back to me it's like it can't deal with the first part of the case citation for some reason, then states that case doesn't exist.Luke · July 21, 2026
I'm trying to troubleshoot this and when I do I'm asking ParkerGPT to repeat the case law citations back to me that I give it.
When I give it:
United States v. Roundtree, 299 F. App'x 905, 907 (11th Cir. 2008)and ask it to repeat it back to me, it gives me only:
, 907 (11th Cir. 2008)
Already a member? Log in to join this discussion.
You can read every thread. Members can answer.
The people posting here are using the same tools you would be, on cases like this one.