Ader v Ader
SC New York · Oct 1, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC New York
- Record ID
- ader-v-ader-2025-10-01
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the plaintiff's motion for sanctions, ordering the defendants and their counsel to pay the plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and mandated a referral to the First Department Grievance Committee and the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
Why this matter warrants attention
The court sanctioned defense counsel for submitting filings containing AI-hallucinated citations and false quotations. The court ordered the defendants and their counsel to pay the plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in addressing the frivolous conduct and referred the matter to the First Department Grievance Committee and the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics.
The court reasoned that while AI use is not inherently improper, counsel has a non-delegable duty of candor to ensure the accuracy of all factual and legal representations. Counsel's failure to verify AI-generated content, coupled with initial denials of AI use, constituted frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1, necessitating monetary sanctions and referral to disciplinary authorities to maintain the integrity of the profession.
Never defend AI misuse with more unvetted AI; supervising partners must personally verify every citation in sanctions responses.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Trial
- Monetary
- Bar Referral
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
- Procedural posture
- The court granted the plaintiff's motion for sanctions following oral argument on September 24, 2025, finding that defense counsel engaged in frivolous conduct by submitting AI-hallucinated citations and quotations in summary judgment and sanctions-opposition briefing.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Counsel admitted to using AI but did not specify the tool.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.