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.
Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (1)
N.D. California · Sep 5, 2025
CA / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityemployment
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel attributed a parenthetical quotation to Mir that misstated the case's holding; Court questioned the accuracy and required explanation. Outcome: Order to circulate decision in law firm; CLE. "In her declaration, Attorney Cervantes described the erroneous citation as her own inadvertent error and further implied that Westlaw’s tool may have “glitched” by erroneously producing the citation. [Dkt. 31 at ¶ 4]. Specifically, she indicates that the copy citation tool mayhave inadvertently copied the wrong citation information.Yet, that explanation seems highly improbable.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Order to circulate decision in law firm; CLE; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving CoCounsel with Order to circulate decision in law firm; CLE in N.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel attributed a parenthetical quotation to Mir that misstated the case's holding; Court questioned the accuracy and required explanation. Outcome: Order to circulate decision in law firm; CLE. "In her declaration, Attorney Cervantes described the erroneous citation as her own inadvertent error and further implied that Westlaw’s tool may have “glitched” by erroneously producing the citation. [Dkt. 31 at ¶ 4]. Specifically, she indicates that the copy citation tool mayhave inadvertently copied the wrong citation information.Yet, that explanation seems highly improbable. The citation was incorrect in every respect and none of the sub-parts of the citation match each other, including the case docket number, reporter, pincite, court information, and date information. The likelihood of every component of a citation being simultaneously wrong due to a software malfunction in transcribing from a “correct” citation is, in the Court’s view, statistically improbable (particularly given Westlaw’s representations as to the accuracy of its tools and the apparent resources Westlaw has devoted to promoting the reputation of this tool). If one set of numbers had been transposed, or if the date were wrong, such transcription errors might be explicable. However, the fact that the party names, docket number, Westlaw citation, date, and court all failed to match, resulting in a mashup citation, cannot credibly be attributed to a software error, let alone a mistranscription or copying mistake. Rather,this Frankensteinian legal citation, stitched together from mismatched party names, docket numbers, dates, and courts, bears the hallmarks of an AI-generated hallucination, as documented in numerous published opinions and reports."
Operational lesson
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving CoCounsel with Order to circulate decision in law firm; CLE in N.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtN.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateSep 5, 2025
CO
AI toolCoCounsel
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeOrder to circulate decision in law firm; CLE
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
CoCounsel is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Order to circulate decision in law firm; CLE
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel attributed a parenthetical quotation to Mir that misstated the case's holding; Court questioned the accuracy and required explanation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief included a nonexistent case citation (a 'mashup' citation) that did not match any real opinion; Court treated it as an AI-style fabricated citation and faulted counsel for failing to verify.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (1)?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel attributed a parenthetical quotation to Mir that misstated the case's holding; Court questioned the accuracy and required explanation. Outcome: Order to circulate decision in law firm; CLE. "In her declaration, Attorney Cervantes described the erroneous citation as her own inadvertent error and further implied that Westlaw’s tool may have “glitched” by erroneously producing the citation. [Dkt. 31 at ¶ 4]. Specifically, she indicates that the copy citation tool mayhave inadvertently copied the wrong citation information.Yet, that explanation seems highly improbable.…
- Why does Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (1) matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving CoCounsel with Order to circulate decision in law firm; CLE in N.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (1)?
- 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 Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (1) 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.