AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 12, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 11, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesDSME Construction Co., Ltd.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

DSME Construction Co., Ltd.

ASBCA · Mar 13, 2026

/ federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontracttrialStruck Filing
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The ASBCA struck the appellant's surreply and denied its motion to file an amended surreply as a sanction for submitting briefs containing ten non-existent case citations. The Board declined the government's request to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, ruling that the appellant's conduct did not warrant the most severe sanction.

Why the court cared
The Board reasoned that while the appellant's conduct in submitting fictitious citations was sanctionable, it did not rise to the level of contumacious or contemptuous behavior required for dismissal with prejudice. The Board determined that striking the offending surreply and denying the motion to amend was sufficient to address the lack of candor and deter future misconduct.
Why it matters now
Admitting AI fabrications early and striking the brief beats stonewalling — but still requires a firm verification protocol going forward.

Why this matter is tracked

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) addressed a government motion to dismiss an appeal after the appellant submitted briefs containing multiple fictitious case citations and misrepresented legal authorities. While the government alleged the use of generative AI, the appellant did not confirm or deny AI usage, attributing the errors to a breakdown in internal verification processes. The Board declined to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, finding the conduct did not meet the threshold for the severest sanction. However, the Board struck the appellant's surreply and denied a motion to file an amended version, citing the appellant's lack of candor regarding the origin of the fictitious citations and the need to deter future non-compliant filings.

Operational lesson

Admitting AI fabrications early and striking the brief beats stonewalling — but still requires a firm verification protocol going forward.

Record details

CourtASBCA
Jurisdictionfederal
CircuitNot recorded
DateMar 13, 2026
GE
AI toolGenerative artificial intelligence (alleged by government, not confirmed by appellant)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe government's motion to dismiss was denied; the appellant's surreply was stricken; and the appellant's motion for leave to file an amended surreply was denied.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

The government alleged AI use, but the appellant did not address the allegation.

Procedural posture

The Board issued an opinion on the government's motion to dismiss the appeal as a sanction for the appellant's submission of briefs containing fictitious case law.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | December 1, 2025 surreply contained eight citations to cases that do not exist; Board accepted appellant's admission and struck the surreply.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief included one citation to a non-existent case (admitted by appellant).
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | January 9, 2026 brief on the vitiation issue cited one fictitious case (admitted by appellant).
  4. Fabricated: Legal Norm | Briefs included fictitious Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) citations (government identified four fictitious FAR cites).
  5. Misrepresented: Case Law | Government identified several citations that misrepresented the holdings of existing cases (some citations appeared to misstate holdings).

Questions this record answers

What happened in DSME Construction Co., Ltd.?
The ASBCA struck the appellant's surreply and denied its motion to file an amended surreply as a sanction for submitting briefs containing ten non-existent case citations. The Board declined the government's request to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, ruling that the appellant's conduct did not warrant the most severe sanction.
Why does DSME Construction Co., Ltd. matter for legal AI risk?
Admitting AI fabrications early and striking the brief beats stonewalling — but still requires a firm verification protocol going forward.
What does the public record establish about DSME Construction Co., Ltd.?
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 DSME Construction Co., Ltd. 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.

Endure Industries, Inc. v. Defense Health AgencyASBCA · Mar 23, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityAppeals of Huffman Construction, LLCASBCA · Oct 23, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityCames et al. v. Lowe's Home CentersM.D. Florida · Jul 16, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group Ltd, et al.N.D. Ohio · Jul 8, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)BFG Corporation v. Pierce RE Holdings et al.N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)CIBC Mortgages Inc v Reina FloresManitoba C.A. · Jun 12, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)