DSME Construction Co., Ltd.
ASBCA · Mar 13, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- ASBCA
- Record ID
- dsme-construction-co-ltd-2026-03-13
- Observed outcome
- The 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 monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Admitting AI fabrications early and striking the brief beats stonewalling — but still requires a firm verification protocol going forward.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- Struck Filing
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (alleged by government, not confirmed by appellant)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- 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.
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 government alleged AI use, but the appellant did not address the allegation.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement mandatory verification of all case citations against primary legal databases before filing.
- Establish a formal proofreading and citation-check protocol to prevent the inclusion of fictitious or misrepresented authorities.
- Ensure that any AI-assisted research is subject to human-in-the-loop verification to confirm the existence and accuracy of cited holdings.
- Maintain transparency with the court regarding the source of research errors to avoid findings of lack of candor.