HomeCasesDOE, J. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University

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.

Corpus matter record

DOE, J. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University

SC New York · May 5, 2026

NY / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsadministrativetrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioners' papers included fabricated case citations generated by AI; opposing counsel pointed them out and counsel withdrew and apologized. Outcome: Counsel apologized.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Counsel apologized; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and administrative involving Unidentified with Counsel apologized in SC New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioners' papers included fabricated case citations generated by AI; opposing counsel pointed them out and counsel withdrew and apologized. Outcome: Counsel apologized.

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and administrative involving Unidentified with Counsel apologized in SC New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtSC New York

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateMay 5, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeCounsel apologized

Known amountNot recorded

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

Counsel apologized

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 | Petitioners' papers included fabricated case citations generated by AI; opposing counsel pointed them out and counsel withdrew and apologized.

Questions this record answers

What happened in DOE, J. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University?: Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioners' papers included fabricated case citations generated by AI; opposing counsel pointed them out and counsel withdrew and apologized. Outcome: Counsel apologized.
Why does DOE, J. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and administrative involving Unidentified with Counsel apologized in SC New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about DOE, J. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University?: 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 DOE, J. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University 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.

Matter of MatosSC New York · Nov 13, 2025same court · fake citations + administrative In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David RinaldiSC New York · Apr 27, 2026same court · fake citations + administrative Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLCSC New York · May 28, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Keefe v. BMakin Film LtdSC New York · Apr 24, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Ellen Michaelis v. Wilmington Savings Fund SocietySC New York · Apr 3, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Deutsche Bank National Bank v. Jean LeTennierSC New York · Jan 8, 2026same court · fake citations + trial

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 | Petitioners' papers included fabricated case citations generated by AI; opposing counsel pointed them out and counsel withdrew and apologized. Outcome: Counsel apologized.

Operational lesson

Questions this record answers

What happened in DOE, J. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University?

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioners' papers included fabricated case citations generated by AI; opposing counsel pointed them out and counsel withdrew and apologized. Outcome: Counsel apologized.

Why does DOE, J. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about DOE, J. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University?

Which source supports this DOE, J. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University 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.