Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 12, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 11, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAmtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Amtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

SC New Jersey · Mar 27, 2026

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court imposed a $1,000 personal monetary sanction on plaintiff's counsel for citing four non-existent cases in an appellate brief and failing to correct the record after being alerted to the errors by opposing counsel, in violation of the duty of candor.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that the citation of non-existent cases violated RPC 3.3 (candor to the tribunal) and Rule 2:9-9. The court emphasized that while AI use is not prohibited, counsel remains responsible for the validity of submissions. The sanction was specifically warranted because counsel failed to retract the hallucinations even after opposing counsel identified them, demonstrating an 'utter indifference' to professional standards and wasting judicial resources.
Why it matters now
Four fabricated NJ cites drew $9K plus recommended CLE — subrogation briefs now warrant supervisor sign-off.

Why this matter is tracked

In an appeal regarding a subrogation claim, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint but remanded for a dismissal without prejudice. The court identified that plaintiff's counsel cited four non-existent cases in his merits brief, which the court characterized as hallmarks of generative artificial intelligence. Despite being alerted to these errors by opposing counsel, plaintiff's attorney failed to retract the citations or correct the brief, demonstrating a lack of candor and professional competence. The court found this conduct violated RPC 3.3 and Rule 2:9-9, and imposed a $1,000 personal sanction on counsel, payable to the State of New Jersey, while also noting the wasted judicial resources.

Operational lesson

Four fabricated NJ cites drew $9K plus recommended CLE — subrogation briefs now warrant supervisor sign-off.

Record details

New JerseySingle-state evidence scope
Explore NJOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtSC New Jersey
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit3rd Circuit
DateMar 27, 2026
UN
AI toolunspecified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint (remanded for modification to 'without prejudice') and imposed a $1,000 personal sanction on plaintiff's counsel.
Known amount$1,000
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court identified the citations as hallmarks of generative AI but did not name a specific tool.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a trial court's dismissal of a declaratory judgment action with prejudice.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this non-existent Appellate Division case to support the carrier's right to subrogation against UIM benefits; court found it does not appear in the NJ Superior Court Reports.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this nonexistent Law Division decision (and purported affirmance) to support subrogation; court found no record of the case in NJ reports.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this purported 2006 Appellate Division case; court determined the cited authority does not exist in the NJ Superior Court Reports.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this alleged 1971 Law Division decision and its purported affirmance; court found no such opinions in the NJ Superior Court Reports.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Amtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company?
The court imposed a $1,000 personal monetary sanction on plaintiff's counsel for citing four non-existent cases in an appellate brief and failing to correct the record after being alerted to the errors by opposing counsel, in violation of the duty of candor.
Why does Amtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company matter for legal AI risk?
Four fabricated NJ cites drew $9K plus recommended CLE — subrogation briefs now warrant supervisor sign-off.
What does the public record establish about Amtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company?
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 Amtrust North America o/b/o Justin McGinness v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 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.