Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Ader v Ader
SC New York · Oct 1, 2025
NY / stateEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritytrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation appeared in Defendants' summary judgment opposition; court found it to be an AI hallucination and counsel later conceded AI use. Outcome: Costs Order; Referral to Bar Authorities. "This case adds yet another unfortunate chapter to the story of artificial intelligence misuse in the legal profession. Here, Defendants' counsel not only included an AI-hallucinated citation and quotations in the summary judgment brief that led to the filing of this motion for sanctions, but also included multiple new AIhallucinated citations and quotations in Defendants' brief opposing this motion.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Costs Order; Referral to Bar Authorities; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Never defend AI misuse with more unvetted AI; supervising partners must personally verify every citation in sanctions responses.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation appeared in Defendants' summary judgment opposition; court found it to be an AI hallucination and counsel later conceded AI use. Outcome: Costs Order; Referral to Bar Authorities. "This case adds yet another unfortunate chapter to the story of artificial intelligence misuse in the legal profession. Here, Defendants' counsel not only included an AI-hallucinated citation and quotations in the summary judgment brief that led to the filing of this motion for sanctions, but also included multiple new AIhallucinated citations and quotations in Defendants' brief opposing this motion. In other words, counsel relied upon unvetted AI—in his telling, via inadequately supervised colleagues—to defend his use of unvetted AI."
Operational lesson
Never defend AI misuse with more unvetted AI; supervising partners must personally verify every citation in sanctions responses.
Record details
New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
CourtSC New York
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateOct 1, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeCosts Order; Referral to Bar Authorities
Known amount$1
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Costs Order; Referral to Bar Authorities
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation appeared in Defendants' summary judgment opposition; court found it to be an AI hallucination and counsel later conceded AI use.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants' opposition to the sanctions motion contained four citations that do not exist (identified by Plaintiff and cited by the Court as AI-generated).
- False Quotes: Case Law | Seven quotations in Defendants' sanctions-opposition brief do not exist in the cited cases (Plaintiff identified them; Court treated them as AI-generated false quotations).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Three quotations in Defendants' briefs were from real cases but do not support the propositions for which they were offered (misstated precedent identified by Plaintiff).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Ader v Ader?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation appeared in Defendants' summary judgment opposition; court found it to be an AI hallucination and counsel later conceded AI use. Outcome: Costs Order; Referral to Bar Authorities. "This case adds yet another unfortunate chapter to the story of artificial intelligence misuse in the legal profession. Here, Defendants' counsel not only included an AI-hallucinated citation and quotations in the summary judgment brief that led to the filing of this motion for sanctions, but also included multiple new AIhallucinated citations and quotations in Defendants' brief opposing this motion.…
- Why does Ader v Ader matter for legal AI risk?
- Never defend AI misuse with more unvetted AI; supervising partners must personally verify every citation in sanctions responses.
- What does the public record establish about Ader v Ader?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Ader v Ader summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.