Case 19 O 527/16
LG Darmstadt · Nov 10, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- LG Darmstadt
- Record ID
- case-19-o-52716-2025-11-10
- Observed outcome
- Expert fees reduced to naught
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
In LG Darmstadt No. 19 O 527/16, the court set a court-appointed expert’s requested EUR 2,374.50 remuneration to EUR 0.00. It found the medical report unusable because the expert had not clearly established personal authorship, had not examined the claimant, and had substantially used AI without disclosure; the decision cited AI-typical repetitions, formatting, and generic file-summary language.
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions
Hold outside experts to the same AI-verification standard as attorneys; fabricated exhibits zero out their fee.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- No tool named in source
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Expert fees reduced to naught
rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de
Secondary or other linked source. The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
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.
Latest evidence review: Metadata Only (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.