Indiana County Elected Tax Assessor’s Filings Contain AI Hallucination

From Tippecanoe County Assessor v. Goergen, one of several such opinions released that day by the Tax Court of Indiana (written by Judge Justin McAdam):

The Tippecanoe County Assessor, Eric Grossman, filed an original tax appeal in this Court without counsel. In his appeal petition, Grossman challenges the denial of a continuance by the Indiana Board of Tax Review as biased and raises constitutional claims related to Petitioner’s “constitutional rights to due process and fair assessments.”

The Tax Court concluded that Grossman couldn’t represent the county because he wasn’t a licensed lawyer, and only licensed lawyers may represent people or entities other than themselves in court. But it added the following:

The risks of allowing a non-attorney to represent others in court is made plainly apparent in Grossman’s brief when he cites Hamilton Cnty. Assessor v. Allisonville Rd. P’ship, 170 N.E.3d 1117 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2021)—a case that does not exist. {While the Court cannot be certain of the origin of the fictitious case cited in Grossman’s brief, it appears likely to be the result of a hallucination by generative artificial intelligence. The Court admonishes Grossman for citing a fictitious case in his brief and “caution[s] attorneys and pro se litigants alike against using AI to conduct legal research without independently verifying the citations generated. Judges must be able to rely on the authenticity of the authorities cited by the parties to make just decisions.” Litigants have a duty to verify the authenticity of authoritative sources cited to the Court and ensure they are used accurately.} …

I reached out to Mr. Grossman, and he responded, graciously and in detail. Here is a written statement that he passed along:

• We own the AI fever dream—our mistake. We regret the lack of quality control on our AI assisted brief. It was unintentional. We do respect the tax court’s time and resources, so we apologize and feel rightly embarrassed about it.
• There were substantive changes to the way apartments were assessed in 2024, the newest in a series of valuation subsidy “carve outs” that we believe results in biased, and therefor unconstitutional, assessments for tax payers without a valuation subsidy.
• We were vocal about major procedural and legal shortcomings with deriving 2024 assessments and encouraged people to appeal when applicable.
• We have hundreds of equity appeals on top of the hundreds of valuation appeals filed annually. Our total annual appeal litigation fund is approximately adequate to fund one or two medium/large contentious cases including attorney fees, appraisals/witness costs, depositions/court reporting, etc. With hundreds of cases filed each year, in addition to 2024 (and still hundreds more in 2025) constitutional equity appeals—there is no way to fund legal counsel except for a very small % of cases.
• The burden of proof is very high for a constitutional assessment equity appeals. Substantial data is necessary to make this case. Some of the necessary data was withheld by the DLGF for almost a year (they claim multiple overlooked requests/follow-ups), resulting in delays building the case. When the state sets a high burden of proof then withholds public information to possibly meet said burden, any such appeal is doomed to fail. These tax court cases are appeals of motions for continuance for IBTR hearings, and the decision was focused on representation and not the appeal of continuance or constitutional equity. Our most diligent efforts & brief writing was focused on the IBTR evidence and briefs proving constitutional inequity, and we regrettably did not have the same attention to details here.
• The Tax Court’s point about a licensed attorney making less AI mistakes, and less mistakes overall is well taken. Without an attorney, our office does indeed struggle to navigate the customs, norms and, in this case, quality control that the court needs. So, we respect their decision to protect their time and decorum.
• There are cons to baring elected officials from representing their offices; attorneys have no real or practical understanding of what happens in the government office involved in the litigation. In previous cases involving Tippecanoe County, we have not felt like attorneys were able to articulate complicated and technical procedures vital to understanding the case. We see this deficiency play out often, most recently in supreme court oral arguments.