HomeCasesClerk of the Ct. v. Rangel

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel

Florida CA · Aug 29, 2025

FL / stateEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritybar referral

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney admitted one cited authority in the answer brief is non-existent; court ordered copies of cited authorities and directed explanation. Outcome: Bar referral.

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: An answer brief with one fake case, 14 false quotes, and 9 misstated holdings draws an automatic bar referral, not a warning.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney admitted one cited authority in the answer brief is non-existent; court ordered copies of cited authorities and directed explanation. Outcome: Bar referral.

Operational lesson

An answer brief with one fake case, 14 false quotes, and 9 misstated holdings draws an automatic bar referral, not a warning.

Record details

FloridaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtFlorida CA

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit11th Circuit

DateAug 29, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBar referral

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionYes

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

Bar referral

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney admitted one cited authority in the answer brief is non-existent; court ordered copies of cited authorities and directed explanation.
False Quotes: Case Law | Attorney admitted that 14 cited cases do not contain the quotations attributed to them in the answer brief; court demanded highlighted copies to verify quotations.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Attorney admitted the answer brief misstated holdings in nine cited cases and inaccurately summarized many authorities.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel?: Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney admitted one cited authority in the answer brief is non-existent; court ordered copies of cited authorities and directed explanation. Outcome: Bar referral.
Why does Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel matter for legal AI risk?: An answer brief with one fake case, 14 false quotes, and 9 misstated holdings draws an automatic bar referral, not a warning.
What does the public record establish about Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel?: 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 Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel 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.

The Doc App, Inc. d/b/a My Florida Green v. Leafwell, Inc. (1)M.D. Florida · Nov 26, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes Leafwell, Inc. v. The Doc App, Inc. (2)M.D. Florida · Jun 9, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes Stringer v. White Cap Supply Holdings, LLCM.D. Florida · May 14, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Sigrid McCawleyS.D. Florida · Feb 4, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes Farag v. Persante et alM.D. Florida · Jan 26, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes Charles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., et al.M.D. Florida · Oct 15, 2025same jurisdiction · 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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney admitted one cited authority in the answer brief is non-existent; court ordered copies of cited authorities and directed explanation. Outcome: Bar referral.

Operational lesson

An answer brief with one fake case, 14 false quotes, and 9 misstated holdings draws an automatic bar referral, not a warning.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney admitted one cited authority in the answer brief is non-existent; court ordered copies of cited authorities and directed explanation.

False Quotes: Case Law | Attorney admitted that 14 cited cases do not contain the quotations attributed to them in the answer brief; court demanded highlighted copies to verify quotations.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Attorney admitted the answer brief misstated holdings in nine cited cases and inaccurately summarized many authorities.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel?

Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney admitted one cited authority in the answer brief is non-existent; court ordered copies of cited authorities and directed explanation. Outcome: Bar referral.

Why does Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel matter for legal AI risk?

An answer brief with one fake case, 14 false quotes, and 9 misstated holdings draws an automatic bar referral, not a warning.

What does the public record establish about Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel?

Which source supports this Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel 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.