HomeCasesCartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (1)

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.

Corpus matter record

Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (1)

S.D. New York · Mar 10, 2026

NY / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationsbar referraltorttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief filed by defendant's counsel contained multiple non-existent case citations and misstatements of law; court found pervasive 'hallucinated' cases and noted counsel attributed errors to use of 'Protégé' AI. Outcome: Bar Referral. Bar referral ordered in a subsequent Order.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Bar Referral; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and bar referral involving Protégé (LexisNexis) with Bar Referral in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and bar referral involving Protégé (LexisNexis) with Bar Referral in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

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

DateMar 10, 2026

AI toolProtégé (LexisNexis)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBar Referral

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionYes

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

Protégé (LexisNexis) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Bar Referral

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 | Brief filed by defendant's counsel contained multiple non-existent case citations and misstatements of law; court found pervasive 'hallucinated' cases and noted counsel attributed errors to use of 'Protégé' AI.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (1)?: Fabricated: Case Law | Brief filed by defendant's counsel contained multiple non-existent case citations and misstatements of law; court found pervasive 'hallucinated' cases and noted counsel attributed errors to use of 'Protégé' AI. Outcome: Bar Referral. Bar referral ordered in a subsequent Order.
Why does Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (1) matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and bar referral involving Protégé (LexisNexis) with Bar Referral in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (1)?: 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 Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (1) 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.

Minhye Park v. Hon. Barrington D. Parker, et al.S.D. New York · Jul 15, 2026same court · fake citations + bar referral Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (2)S.D. New York · Jul 10, 2026same court · fake citations + bar referral LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. RedstoneS.D. New York · Jun 9, 2026same court · fake citations + bar referral Ng v. AmGuard Insurance Company, et al.S.D. New York · Dec 29, 2025same court · fake citations + tort McMillian v. Zimmer US, IncS.D. New York · Dec 16, 2025same court · fake citations + tort Christian Dusablon v. Hugh A. Gibbs and Union Logistics, LLCS.D. New York · Dec 9, 2025same court · fake citations + tort

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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

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

DateMar 10, 2026

AI toolProtégé (LexisNexis)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBar Referral

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionYes

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Questions this record answers

What happened in Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (1)?

Why does Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (1) matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (1)?

Which source supports this Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (1) 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.