HomeCasesBurlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al.

S.D. New York · Dec 17, 2025

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel included quotations attributed to In re Vivendi Universal that do not appear in that decision; the court flagged the quoted language as absent from the cited opinion.

Why the court cared: False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel included quotations attributed to In re Vivendi Universal that do not appear in that decision; the court flagged the quoted language as absent from the cited opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel included quotations attributed to In re Parmalat that do not appear in that decision; the court flagged the quoted language as absent from the cited opinion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff counsel cited 'Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. Havens, 1994 WL 760822, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 1994)' to support unjust enrichment; the court found that Midlantic does not appear to exist. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff counsel cited In re Refco, 826 F. Supp. 2d 478, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) as supporting unjust enrichment; the court found that Refco does not mention unjust enrichment and thus was misused.
Why it matters now: Every quote must be traceable to the cited opinion; missing quotes in a brief signal unverified AI drafting.

Why this matter is tracked

False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel included quotations attributed to In re Vivendi Universal that do not appear in that decision; the court flagged the quoted language as absent from the cited opinion.

Operational lesson

Every quote must be traceable to the cited opinion; missing quotes in a brief signal unverified AI drafting.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtS.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateDec 17, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel included quotations attributed to In re Vivendi Universal that do not appear in that decision; the court flagged the quoted language as absent from the cited opinion.
False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel included quotations attributed to In re Parmalat that do not appear in that decision; the court flagged the quoted language as absent from the cited opinion.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff counsel cited 'Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. Havens, 1994 WL 760822, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 1994)' to support unjust enrichment; the court found that Midlantic does not appear to exist.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff counsel cited In re Refco, 826 F. Supp. 2d 478, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) as supporting unjust enrichment; the court found that Refco does not mention unjust enrichment and thus was misused.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al.?: False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel included quotations attributed to In re Vivendi Universal that do not appear in that decision; the court flagged the quoted language as absent from the cited opinion.
Why does Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al. matter for legal AI risk?: Every quote must be traceable to the cited opinion; missing quotes in a brief signal unverified AI drafting.
What does the public record establish about Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al.?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. 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.

Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLCS.D. New York · Apr 30, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Saregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Tameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.S.D. New York · Nov 26, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USAS.D. New York · Jun 25, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Flycatcher v. Affable AvenueS.D. New York · Feb 5, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Mata v. Avianca, IncS.D. New York · Jun 22, 2023same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel included quotations attributed to In re Vivendi Universal that do not appear in that decision; the court flagged the quoted language as absent from the cited opinion.

Operational lesson

Every quote must be traceable to the cited opinion; missing quotes in a brief signal unverified AI drafting.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtS.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateDec 17, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel included quotations attributed to In re Vivendi Universal that do not appear in that decision; the court flagged the quoted language as absent from the cited opinion.

False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel included quotations attributed to In re Parmalat that do not appear in that decision; the court flagged the quoted language as absent from the cited opinion.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff counsel cited 'Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. Havens, 1994 WL 760822, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 1994)' to support unjust enrichment; the court found that Midlantic does not appear to exist.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff counsel cited In re Refco, 826 F. Supp. 2d 478, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) as supporting unjust enrichment; the court found that Refco does not mention unjust enrichment and thus was misused.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al.?

False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel included quotations attributed to In re Vivendi Universal that do not appear in that decision; the court flagged the quoted language as absent from the cited opinion.

Why does Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al. matter for legal AI risk?

Every quote must be traceable to the cited opinion; missing quotes in a brief signal unverified AI drafting.

What does the public record establish about Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al.?

Which source supports this Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. 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.