Alexey Dubinin v. Varsenik Papazian
S.D. Florida · Nov 21, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. Florida
- Record ID
- alexey-dubinin-v-varsenik-papazian-2025-11-21
- Observed outcome
- Complaint stricken; case dismissed; $4,030.90 in attorneys' fees awarded; referral to Florida Bar and Grievance Committee for both attorneys.
- Known monetary consequence
- $4,030
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court sanctioned attorney Missiva Tilleli Khacer for filing documents containing AI-hallucinated legal authorities. The sanctions included a $4,030.90 monetary penalty for attorneys' fees and a referral to the Florida Bar and the Court's Grievance Committee for both Khacer and the assisting attorney, Nataliya Gavlin.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's Response cited a decision from this Court that does not exist; the Court's independent review confirmed non-existence. || False Quotes: Case Law | Response included quotations attributed to Eleventh Circuit opinions that do not appear in those opinions; Court identified multiple such misquotes. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court's Order to Show Cause listed at least ten instances across the Complaint and Response citing non-existent cases and quotes (AI-hallucinated authorities).
Ten fake citations across a Complaint and Response equals bar referral; require second-attorney verification before any filing.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Bar Referral
- Administrative
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- $4,030
- Procedural posture
- Following a show-cause hearing regarding AI-generated misrepresentations, the Court struck the Complaint, dismissed the case without prejudice, and imposed monetary and disciplinary sanctions.
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
The court record identifies the use of AI but does not name the specific software.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Do not treat a paid legal-research product as a substitute for source verification.
- Assign a responsible reviewer for AI-assisted research and drafting.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.