Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-13D8BJ1Generated August 5, 2026Evidence checked Aug 5, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Fernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, et al.

S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
S.D. New York
Record ID
fernando-justino-santana-v-shook-hardy-bacon-et-al-2026-07-31
Observed outcome
Warning
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition brief contained citations and quoted authority that Defendants say do not exist; Court noted these appear to be fabricated case citations likely from AI. Outcome: Warning.

Why the decision-maker cared

The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.

Why it matters now

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in S.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Fabricated Quotes
  • Employment
  • Trial
  • Warning
AI attribution
Reported
Recorded tool
AI (implied, unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Warning
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

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.

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
  3. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.