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.
Dehghani v. Castro
D. New Mexico · Apr 2, 2025
NM / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quoteshabeastrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a non-existent case; Court and Respondent could not locate it, and counsel admitted it does not exist. Outcome: Monetary sanction; required CLE on legal ethics and AI; mandatory self-reporting to NM and TX state bars; report of subcontractor to NY state bar; required notification to LAWCLERK.
- Why the court cared
- The court emphasized that counsel’s failure to verify cited cases, coupled with blind reliance on subcontracted work, constituted a violation of Rule 11(b)(2). The court analogized to other AI-sanctions cases. While the fine was modest, the court imposed significant procedural obligations to ensure deterrence
- Why it matters now
- Outsourced drafting is still your signature; verify every cite from freelance work before filing or face dual-state bar referrals.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a non-existent case; Court and Respondent could not locate it, and counsel admitted it does not exist. Outcome: Monetary sanction; required CLE on legal ethics and AI; mandatory self-reporting to NM and TX state bars; report of subcontractor to NY state bar; required notification to LAWCLERK.
AI Use
Counsel hired a freelance attorney through LAWCLERK to prepare a filing. He made minimal edits and admitted not verifying any of the case law before signing. The filing included multiple fabricated cases and misquoted others. The court concluded these were AI hallucinations, likely produced by ChatGPT or similar.
Hallucination Details
Examples of non-existent cases cited include:Moncada v. Ruiz, Vega-Mendoza v. Homeland Security, Morales v. ICE Field Office Director, Meza v. United States Attorney General, Hernandez v. Sessions, and Ramirez v. DHS.All were either entirely fictitious or misquoted real decisions.
Ruling/Sanction
The Court sanctioned Counsel by:Ordering a $1,500 fineRequiring a 1-hour CLE on AI/legal ethicsOrdering him to self-report to the New Mexico and Texas barsOrdering him to report the freelance lawyer to the New York barRequiring notification of LAWCLERKRequiring proof of compliance by May 15, 2025
Key Judicial Reasoning
The court emphasized that counsel’s failure to verify cited cases, coupled with blind reliance on subcontracted work, constituted a violation of Rule 11(b)(2). The court analogized to other AI-sanctions cases. While the fine was modest, the court imposed significant procedural obligations to ensure deterrence.
Operational lesson
Outsourced drafting is still your signature; verify every cite from freelance work before filing or face dual-state bar referrals.
Record details
New MexicoSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. New Mexico
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateApr 2, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary sanction; required CLE on legal ethics and AI; mandatory self-reporting to NM and TX state bars; report of subcontractor to NY state bar; required notification to LAWCLERK
Known amount$1,500
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; required CLE on legal ethics and AI; mandatory self-reporting to NM and TX state bars; report of subcontractor to NY state bar; required notification to LAWCLERK
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a non-existent case; Court and Respondent could not locate it, and counsel admitted it does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a non-existent case; Court and Respondent could not locate it, and counsel admitted it does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a non-existent case; Court and Respondent could not locate it, and counsel admitted it does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a non-existent case; Court and Respondent could not locate it, and counsel admitted it does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a non-existent case; Court and Respondent could not locate it, and counsel admitted it does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a non-existent case; Court and Respondent could not locate it, and counsel admitted it does not exist.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel admitted that thirteen other citations quoted language not from the cited cases and did not support the stated propositions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Dehghani v. Castro?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a non-existent case; Court and Respondent could not locate it, and counsel admitted it does not exist. Outcome: Monetary sanction; required CLE on legal ethics and AI; mandatory self-reporting to NM and TX state bars; report of subcontractor to NY state bar; required notification to LAWCLERK.
- Why does Dehghani v. Castro matter for legal AI risk?
- Outsourced drafting is still your signature; verify every cite from freelance work before filing or face dual-state bar referrals.
- What does the public record establish about Dehghani v. Castro?
- 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 Dehghani v. Castro 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.