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.
Appeals of Huffman Construction, LLC
ASBCA · Oct 23, 2025
/ federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent ASBCA decision and incorrect reporter pin (case not found and reporter entry refers to a different appeal). Board could not find ASBCA No. 29708 as cited. Outcome: Reply brief struck in its entirety. The Board found over 70% of citations in Huffman's reply brief inaccurate, including fabricated cases, misattributed reporter citations, cases that did not support cited propositions, and incorrect or non-existent transcript/Rule 4 citations. Counsel admitted using AI to generate portions of the brief. The Board treated the motion as one for Rule 11-type sanctions and struck the reply brief; it emphasized attorneys' duty to verify AI-generated content.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Reply brief struck in its entirety; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Over 70% bad citations gets a brief struck wholesale; run a 100% citation audit before any AI-drafted filing leaves the firm.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent ASBCA decision and incorrect reporter pin (case not found and reporter entry refers to a different appeal). Board could not find ASBCA No. 29708 as cited. Outcome: Reply brief struck in its entirety. The Board found over 70% of citations in Huffman's reply brief inaccurate, including fabricated cases, misattributed reporter citations, cases that did not support cited propositions, and incorrect or non-existent transcript/Rule 4 citations. Counsel admitted using AI to generate portions of the brief. The Board treated the motion as one for Rule 11-type sanctions and struck the reply brief; it emphasized attorneys' duty to verify AI-generated content.
Operational lesson
Over 70% bad citations gets a brief struck wholesale; run a 100% citation audit before any AI-drafted filing leaves the firm.
Record details
CourtASBCA
Jurisdictionfederal
CircuitNot recorded
DateOct 23, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeReply brief struck in its entirety
Known amountNot recorded
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
Reply brief struck in its entirety
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
10 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent ASBCA decision and incorrect reporter pin (case not found and reporter entry refers to a different appeal). Board could not find ASBCA No. 29708 as cited.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a case name that does not correspond to the reporter entry and appears not to exist in ASBCA decisions identified by the Board.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Grumman Aerospace with an incorrect reporter citation and relied on the citation for a proposition not supported by the actual decisions the Board located.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Relied on a reporter entry and ASBCA reference that did not support the asserted rule; Board found the cited reporter entry involved different parties/subjects.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited a reporter entry and case (Env’t Safety Consultants) that either was the wrong reporter or did not support the claimed legal proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited a federal appellate decision for a proposition about burden shifting though the cited page discusses a different doctrine; the case did not support the claimed rule.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Cited transcript pages as containing expert testimony that the Board found were testimony of a different witness and did not support the asserted facts.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Cited transcript pages as supporting factual assertions, but the cited pages discuss unrelated topics; Board found the transcript did not contain the alleged testimony.
Show 2 additional discrepancies
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Cited non-existent transcript pages (pages contain reporter certificates or are beyond transcript length) to support factual claims.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Cited transcript pages that do not exist (volume ends earlier) to attribute concessions to the contracting officer; Board noted the pages cited were beyond the transcript's length.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Appeals of Huffman Construction, LLC?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent ASBCA decision and incorrect reporter pin (case not found and reporter entry refers to a different appeal). Board could not find ASBCA No. 29708 as cited. Outcome: Reply brief struck in its entirety. The Board found over 70% of citations in Huffman's reply brief inaccurate, including fabricated cases, misattributed reporter citations, cases that did not support cited propositions, and incorrect or non-existent transcript/Rule 4 citations. Counsel admitted using AI to generate portions of the brief. The Board treated the motion as one for Rule 11-type sanctions and struck the reply brief; it emphasized attorneys' duty to verify AI-generated content.
- Why does Appeals of Huffman Construction, LLC matter for legal AI risk?
- Over 70% bad citations gets a brief struck wholesale; run a 100% citation audit before any AI-drafted filing leaves the firm.
- What does the public record establish about Appeals of Huffman Construction, LLC?
- 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 Appeals of Huffman Construction, LLC 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.