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.
Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2025
PA / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationstorttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney cited a non-existent Pa. Superior Court case; the WL cite maps to Dolberry v. Jakob (N.D.N.Y. 2019) and the docket number to an unrelated criminal appeal; the captioned Tinch case exists only as a 1997 N.C. decision and is irrelevant. Outcome: Striking of Counsel’s Appearance + Referral to Bar Authorities + Client Notification Order.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Striking of Counsel’s Appearance + Referral to Bar Authorities + Client Notification Order; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Ignoring a standing AI order plus refusing to explain cites gets your appearance struck and your bar notified; always comply and disclose.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney cited a non-existent Pa. Superior Court case; the WL cite maps to Dolberry v. Jakob (N.D.N.Y. 2019) and the docket number to an unrelated criminal appeal; the captioned Tinch case exists only as a 1997 N.C. decision and is irrelevant. Outcome: Striking of Counsel’s Appearance + Referral to Bar Authorities + Client Notification Order.
AI Use
Counsel filed opposition briefs citing two nonexistent cases. The court suspected generative AI use based on "hallucination" patterns but Counsel neither admitted nor explained the citations satisfactorily. Failure to comply with a standing AI order aggravated sanctions.
Hallucination Details
Two fake cases cited. Citation numbers and Westlaw references pointed to irrelevant or unrelated cases. No affidavit or real case documents were produced when ordered.
Ruling/Sanction
Counsel's appearance was struck with prejudice. The Court ordered notification to the State Bar of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District Bar. Consel was required to inform his client, Bevins, of the sanctions and the need for new counsel if re-filing.
Operational lesson
Ignoring a standing AI order plus refusing to explain cites gets your appearance struck and your bar notified; always comply and disclose.
Record details
PennsylvaniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Pennsylvania
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit3rd Circuit
DateApr 10, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeStriking of Counsel’s Appearance + Referral to Bar Authorities + Client Notification Order
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionYes
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
Striking of Counsel’s Appearance + Referral to Bar Authorities + Client Notification Order
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 | Attorney cited a non-existent Pa. Superior Court case; the WL cite maps to Dolberry v. Jakob (N.D.N.Y. 2019) and the docket number to an unrelated criminal appeal; the captioned Tinch case exists only as a 1997 N.C. decision and is irrelevant.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney cited a purported E.D. Pa. decision the Court could not locate; the WL cite maps to Top Choice Distributors v. U.S. Postal Serv. (W.D.N.Y. 1997), the case number corresponds to Daniels v. Copley Pharma., and the date does not match.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney cited a non-existent Pa. Superior Court case; the WL cite maps to Dolberry v. Jakob (N.D.N.Y. 2019) and the docket number to an unrelated criminal appeal; the captioned Tinch case exists only as a 1997 N.C. decision and is irrelevant. Outcome: Striking of Counsel’s Appearance + Referral to Bar Authorities + Client Notification Order.
- Why does Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. matter for legal AI risk?
- Ignoring a standing AI order plus refusing to explain cites gets your appearance struck and your bar notified; always comply and disclose.
- What does the public record establish about Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.?
- 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 Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. 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.