Cingel v. Ferreri
CA Indiana · Sep 19, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Indiana
- Record ID
- cingel-v-ferreri-2025-09-19
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and issued a formal warning regarding the appellant's failure to verify legal authorities generated by AI.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a warning regarding the appellant's use of generative AI for legal research after finding that the appellant's appellate brief contained 14 nonexistent legal authorities and multiple mischaracterized statutes. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that the appellant's significant noncompliance with appellate rules and reliance on fabricated authority impeded the court's review.
The court reasoned that the appellant's reliance on nonexistent and mischaracterized authorities significantly impeded its ability to review the claims, violating appellate rules requiring cogent reasoning and accurate citations. The court explicitly cautioned against using AI for legal research without independent verification, stating that judicial decision-making depends on the authenticity of cited authorities.
This case highlights the risks of pro se litigants using generative AI to draft appellate briefs without verification. It serves as a judicial warning that courts will not tolerate the submission of fabricated legal authorities, regardless of the research method employed.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Fabricated Statutory Authority
- Fabricated Trial Rules
- Misrepresentation Of Legal Authority
- Failure To Verify AI Generated Research
- Pro Se
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from the Kosciusko Superior Court to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, resulting in an affirmation of the trial court's custody and relocation orders.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
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 court stated it is likely the appellant used generative AI.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all legal citations, especially those generated by AI tools.
- Review all AI-generated research against primary legal sources to ensure existence and accuracy.
- Ensure pro se litigants or junior staff are trained on the risks of AI-generated hallucinations in legal filings.
- Monitor appellate filings for patterns of citation errors that may indicate reliance on unverified AI output.