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 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
CommNV vs Uprise
Nevada DC · Sep 5, 2025
NV / stateEditorial impact: mediumfake citationstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
CommNV LLC v. Uprise LLC is reported as a September 5, 2025 Nevada Second Judicial District Court matter, No. CV23-02123. A legal-AI governance case database reports that two Cozen O’Connor lawyers filed a brief containing fourteen fictitious citations and identifies Judge David Hardy. It reports a $5,000 sanction split between the lawyers, with monetary and removal consequences suspended if they completed a 60-day remedial program involving notice, education, and public-facing AI-risk work. Crucially, the database states that it had not retrieved the signed order and reconstructed the account from contemporaneous press coverage and docket materials.…
- Why the court cared
- The available secondary account characterizes the response as conditional remediation following fictitious citations. The court’s full reasoning cannot be independently summarized until the signed order is obtained.
- Why it matters now
- It offers a potentially important remediation model, but the unavailable primary order makes transparent sourcing essential.
Why this matter is tracked
CommNV LLC v. Uprise LLC is reported as a September 5, 2025 Nevada Second Judicial District Court matter, No. CV23-02123. A legal-AI governance case database reports that two Cozen O’Connor lawyers filed a brief containing fourteen fictitious citations and identifies Judge David Hardy. It reports a $5,000 sanction split between the lawyers, with monetary and removal consequences suspended if they completed a 60-day remedial program involving notice, education, and public-facing AI-risk work. Crucially, the database states that it had not retrieved the signed order and reconstructed the account from contemporaneous press coverage and docket materials. This record is therefore usable as a transparently sourced secondary account, not as proof of every reported condition. A production page should retain the case number, reported disposition, and source caveat, and should be refreshed against the signed order before presenting granular obligations as definitive.
Operational lesson
It offers a potentially important remediation model, but the unavailable primary order makes transparent sourcing essential.
Record details
NevadaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtNevada DC
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateSep 5, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary Penalty OR Order to volunteer and teach about AI or share their experience
Known amount$5,000
Professional sanctionNo
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
Monetary Penalty OR Order to volunteer and teach about AI or share their experience
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
Questions this record answers
- What happened in CommNV vs Uprise?
- CommNV LLC v. Uprise LLC is reported as a September 5, 2025 Nevada Second Judicial District Court matter, No. CV23-02123. A legal-AI governance case database reports that two Cozen O’Connor lawyers filed a brief containing fourteen fictitious citations and identifies Judge David Hardy. It reports a $5,000 sanction split between the lawyers, with monetary and removal consequences suspended if they completed a 60-day remedial program involving notice, education, and public-facing AI-risk work. Crucially, the database states that it had not retrieved the signed order and reconstructed the account from contemporaneous press coverage and docket materials.…
- Why does CommNV vs Uprise matter for legal AI risk?
- It offers a potentially important remediation model, but the unavailable primary order makes transparent sourcing essential.
- What does the public record establish about CommNV vs Uprise?
- The linked database expressly says the full signed order was not retrieved. Its factual reconstruction should not be treated as an authoritative replacement for the order.
- Which source supports this CommNV vs Uprise summary?
- The recorded source is youtube.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.