Dorsey v. Jones
Delaware Ch. · Dec 16, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- Delaware Ch.
- Record ID
- dorsey-v-jones-2025-12-16
- Observed outcome
- The court issued an order requiring the defendant to certify future filings prepared with GenAI, including disclosure of the tool used and a sworn statement of human verification.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court ordered the defendant to certify all future court filings prepared using generative AI. This certification must identify the specific AI tool used, specify which parts of the filing were AI-generated, and include a sworn statement confirming that a human has verified the accuracy of all legal citations and content.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found briefs cited false legal authority (fabricated or incorrect citations) and concluded GenAI may have produced the content. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found briefs miscited legal authority (incorrect quotations or attributions), suggesting false quotes or misrepresentations from GenAI output.
Expect courts to order prospective AI certification once fabricated citations surface; build certification templates now.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated_legal_authority
- Miscited_legal_authority
- Ai_hallucination
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Contract
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Trial Order issued by the Delaware Court of Chancery on December 16, 2025, following the submission of briefs containing false legal authority.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court defined GenAI broadly but did not name the specific tool used by the defendant.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Follow any applicable disclosure and attribution requirements for AI-assisted work.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.