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.
Arajuo v. Wedelstadt et al
E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 22, 2025
WI / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationstorttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants' counsel's summary judgment brief included citations to non-existent cases; court flagged them, referenced Rule 11 and Park v. Kim, noted likely AI-generated sources, and warned of sanctions; counsel filed an amended brief omitting them. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- The court emphasized that even if the submission of false citations was not malicious, it was still a serious breach of Rule 11 obligations. Legal contentions must be “warranted by existing law,” and attorneys are expected to read and confirm cited cases. The failure to do so, even if caused by AI use, is unacceptable. The court accepted counsel’s corrective effort but insisted that future violations would be sanctionable
- Why it matters now
- Blaming a 'corrupted research tool' is no defense; attorneys must read every cited case before filing.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants' counsel's summary judgment brief included citations to non-existent cases; court flagged them, referenced Rule 11 and Park v. Kim, noted likely AI-generated sources, and warned of sanctions; counsel filed an amended brief omitting them. Outcome: Warning.
AI Use
Counsel admitted using a “new legal research medium”, appears to be a generative AI system or platform capable of generating fictitious case law. Counsel did not deny using AI, but claimed the system may have been corrupted or unreliable. The amended filing removed the false authorities.
Hallucination Details
The court did not identify the specific fake cases but confirmed that “citations to non-existent cases” were included in Defendants’ original brief. Counsel’s subsequent filing corrected the record but did not explain how the citations passed into the brief in the first place.
Ruling/Sanction
Judge William Griesbach denied the motion for summary judgment on the merits, but addressed the citation misconduct separately. He cited Rule 11 and Park v. Kim (91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024)) to underline the duty to verify. No formal sanctions were imposed, but counsel was explicitly warned that further use of non-existent authorities would not be tolerated.
Key Judicial Reasoning
The court emphasized that even if the submission of false citations was not malicious, it was still a serious breach of Rule 11 obligations. Legal contentions must be “warranted by existing law,” and attorneys are expected to read and confirm cited cases. The failure to do so, even if caused by AI use, is unacceptable. The court accepted counsel’s corrective effort but insisted that future violations would be sanctionable.
Operational lesson
Blaming a 'corrupted research tool' is no defense; attorneys must read every cited case before filing.
Record details
WisconsinSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Wisconsin
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit7th Circuit
DateJan 22, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeWarning
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
Warning
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants' counsel's summary judgment brief included citations to non-existent cases; court flagged them, referenced Rule 11 and Park v. Kim, noted likely AI-generated sources, and warned of sanctions; counsel filed an amended brief omitting them.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Arajuo v. Wedelstadt et al?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants' counsel's summary judgment brief included citations to non-existent cases; court flagged them, referenced Rule 11 and Park v. Kim, noted likely AI-generated sources, and warned of sanctions; counsel filed an amended brief omitting them. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Arajuo v. Wedelstadt et al matter for legal AI risk?
- Blaming a 'corrupted research tool' is no defense; attorneys must read every cited case before filing.
- What does the public record establish about Arajuo v. Wedelstadt et al?
- 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 Arajuo v. Wedelstadt et al 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.