Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
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.
Cojom v. Roblen
D. Connecticut · Nov 17, 2025
CT / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsemploymenttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate case Outcome: Monetary sanction. "The danger of Attorney Stich’s AI use is especially felt here because his opponent’s pro se status meant that there was not an adversary capable of calling the attention of the court to the phony citations. Furthermore, this court expended time and resources in investigating the hallucinated citations, resources that could have been better spent adjudicating the merits of this underlying litigation and that of other cases pending before this court.…
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate case || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate case || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate case
- Why it matters now
- Exploiting a pro-se opponent's inability to catch fake cites aggravates sanctions — the court, not opposing counsel, is your verifier.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate case Outcome: Monetary sanction. "The danger of Attorney Stich’s AI use is especially felt here because his opponent’s pro se status meant that there was not an adversary capable of calling the attention of the court to the phony citations. Furthermore, this court expended time and resources in investigating the hallucinated citations, resources that could have been better spent adjudicating the merits of this underlying litigation and that of other cases pending before this court. The oversight in submitting fake citations is more than just sloppy lawyering: it imperils the integrity of our judicial process.However, the court also acknowledges that our society sits on the precipice of rapid technological development and that the continued development of AI will fundamentally alter life as we know it. Just as the advent of the Internet in the late 20th century transformed the legal profession, and particularly legal research, so too will artificial intelligence. Indeed, the two biggest legal research databases, Westlaw and LexisNexis, have developed and continue to expand their own proprietary AI tools to assist legal practitioners in finding case law.2 This Order should not be construed as a Luddite attack on technology and the efficiency it brings to the legal profession. Rather, this Order is an acknowledgement that AI remains a nascent technology with questionable reliability at this juncture. Given the ethical obligations lawyers must honor, it is imperative that lawyers use AI with diligence and care. This technology is too unsophisticated and must necessarily yield to a lawyer’s obligation of candor to the court."
Operational lesson
Exploiting a pro-se opponent's inability to catch fake cites aggravates sanctions — the court, not opposing counsel, is your verifier.
Record details
ConnecticutSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Connecticut
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateNov 17, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary sanction
Known amount$500
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Monetary sanction
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 | Court could not locate case
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate case
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate case
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Cojom v. Roblen?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate case Outcome: Monetary sanction. "The danger of Attorney Stich’s AI use is especially felt here because his opponent’s pro se status meant that there was not an adversary capable of calling the attention of the court to the phony citations. Furthermore, this court expended time and resources in investigating the hallucinated citations, resources that could have been better spent adjudicating the merits of this underlying litigation and that of other cases pending before this court.…
- Why does Cojom v. Roblen matter for legal AI risk?
- Exploiting a pro-se opponent's inability to catch fake cites aggravates sanctions — the court, not opposing counsel, is your verifier.
- What does the public record establish about Cojom v. Roblen?
- 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 Cojom v. Roblen 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.