Family law Case 2024/FA/315
CA Ghent (11th) · Sep 18, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Ghent Court of Appeal disregarded all fictitious and unfindable sources cited in a party's submission and formally admonished counsel for failing to verify the accuracy of AI-assisted legal research, which resulted in the inclusion of fabricated case law, misrepresented statutes, and non-existent doctrinal works.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the submission of unverified, AI-generated content is unacceptable because it causes significant, unjustifiable waste of judicial time and public resources. The court emphasized that while AI can be a valuable tool, its use without rigorous human verification is irresponsible and undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
- Why it matters now
- This case highlights the risks of delegating legal research to AI without human verification. It serves as a precedent for how courts may respond to the submission of 'hallucinated' authorities, emphasizing that counsel bears full professional responsibility for the accuracy of all cited materials.
Why this matter is tracked
In a family law appeal before the Ghent Court of Appeal, the court identified that a party's submission contained numerous fabricated legal citations, misrepresented statutory language, and fictional doctrinal works. The court's investigation revealed that the counsel had not verified the sources provided by a staff member, who had likely utilized AI tools. The court expressed significant concern regarding the lack of oversight in AI-assisted drafting, noting that the fictitious citations caused substantial, unjustifiable waste of judicial resources. Consequently, the court disregarded all unfindable or fabricated sources in its assessment of the merits and formally admonished the counsel for the unacceptable practice of submitting unverified, AI-generated content.
This case highlights the risks of delegating legal research to AI without human verification. It serves as a precedent for how courts may respond to the submission of 'hallucinated' authorities, emphasizing that counsel bears full professional responsibility for the accuracy of all cited materials.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Court questioned counsel regarding AI usage.
Appellate proceedings before the Ghent Court of Appeal (11th Chamber) following an appeal and incidental appeal in a family law matter.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
8 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Legal Norm | Conclusion quotes Articles 871 and 877 Ger.W. in incorrect or non‑existent wording; court supplied correct formulations and found the cited language inaccurate.
- False Quotes: Legal Norm | Conclusion cites an incorrect/oversimplified wording attributed to art. 962 Ger.W. about appointment of experts; court provided correct text and noted the cited version was wrong.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Cited ECHR decision 'Moretti en Benedetti t. Italië (27 april 2010, nr. 16318/07)' with passages about paternity recognition was not found in the cited judgment (which concerned adoption) and the quoted language does not appear in the decision.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Conclusion cites a non‑existent/incorrect passage attributed to old art. 318 BW regarding recognition where father never maintained a familial bond; court could not find such provision.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Regional court judgments (e.g., Hof van Beroep Antwerpen, 20 maart 2019 (2019/AR/0524); Hof van Beroep Brussel, 15 oktober 2018) cited in the conclusion could not be located in Juportal and appear unfindable.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple cassation decisions cited (e.g., 'Cass. 6 juni 2019 (C.18.0543.N)', 'Cass. 25 januari 2018 (C.17.0331.N)', 'Cass. 21 oktober 2013') were not found in Juridat/JURA/Juportal and appear unfindable.
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | A set of Belgian doctrinal works and articles (e.g., S. Stijns RW 2012-13; M. Puelinckx-Coene TPR 2010; F. Swennen TPR 2019, Handboek 2020) were found to be fictional/complete fabrications by the court's database searches.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Conclusion contained an incorrect quotation attributed to old art. 1382 BW; court identified the wording as incorrect compared to the real text.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Family law Case 2024/FA/315?
- The Ghent Court of Appeal disregarded all fictitious and unfindable sources cited in a party's submission and formally admonished counsel for failing to verify the accuracy of AI-assisted legal research, which resulted in the inclusion of fabricated case law, misrepresented statutes, and non-existent doctrinal works.
- Why does Family law Case 2024/FA/315 matter for legal AI risk?
- This case highlights the risks of delegating legal research to AI without human verification. It serves as a precedent for how courts may respond to the submission of 'hallucinated' authorities, emphasizing that counsel bears full professional responsibility for the accuracy of all cited materials.
- What does the public record establish about Family law Case 2024/FA/315?
- 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 Family law Case 2024/FA/315 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.