Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 2, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 31, 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 is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Beslissing in de zaak 26-379/DB/LI/D
Raad van Discipline · Jul 27, 2026
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple cited ECLI references in the conclusions of answer could not be traced and at least one ECLI number did not exist; the lawyer withdrew these references in an 'akte rectificatie'. Outcome: Reprimand; Monetary Fine. The lawyer used one or more AI tools to generate case law citations in two tenant-law matters; several cited ECLI references were non-existent and others pointed to unrelated decisions. The lawyer later filed rectification statements withdrawing the incorrect references and admitted use of AI without adequate verification. The Raad found this conduct breached the core values of expertise and integrity, imposed a reprimand, and ordered payment of €1,250 costs. (Summary by GPT 5.1.)
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records Reprimand; Monetary Fine. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Reprimand; Monetary Fine in Raad van Discipline. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple cited ECLI references in the conclusions of answer could not be traced and at least one ECLI number did not exist; the lawyer withdrew these references in an 'akte rectificatie'. Outcome: Reprimand; Monetary Fine. The lawyer used one or more AI tools to generate case law citations in two tenant-law matters; several cited ECLI references were non-existent and others pointed to unrelated decisions. The lawyer later filed rectification statements withdrawing the incorrect references and admitted use of AI without adequate verification. The Raad found this conduct breached the core values of expertise and integrity, imposed a reprimand, and ordered payment of €1,250 costs. (Summary by GPT 5.1.)
Operational lesson
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Reprimand; Monetary Fine in Raad van Discipline. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CourtRaad van Discipline
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJul 27, 2026
LE
AI toolLegalPA
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeReprimand; Monetary Fine
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
LegalPA is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Reprimand; Monetary Fine
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple cited ECLI references in the conclusions of answer could not be traced and at least one ECLI number did not exist; the lawyer withdrew these references in an 'akte rectificatie'.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Several cited ECLI numbers corresponded to different judgments than described (e.g., divorce or criminal matters), i.e., misattributed case citations generated by the AI.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Beslissing in de zaak 26-379/DB/LI/D?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple cited ECLI references in the conclusions of answer could not be traced and at least one ECLI number did not exist; the lawyer withdrew these references in an 'akte rectificatie'. Outcome: Reprimand; Monetary Fine. The lawyer used one or more AI tools to generate case law citations in two tenant-law matters; several cited ECLI references were non-existent and others pointed to unrelated decisions. The lawyer later filed rectification statements withdrawing the incorrect references and admitted use of AI without adequate verification. The Raad found this conduct breached the core values of expertise and integrity, imposed a reprimand, and ordered payment of €1,250 costs. (Summary by GPT 5.1.)
- Why does Beslissing in de zaak 26-379/DB/LI/D matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Reprimand; Monetary Fine in Raad van Discipline. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Beslissing in de zaak 26-379/DB/LI/D?
- 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 Beslissing in de zaak 26-379/DB/LI/D 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.