Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
In re Boy
CA Illinois · Jul 21, 2025
IL / stateEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityfamily
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent case cited in briefs; court verified no such docket or decision exists. Outcome: Attorney ordered to disgorge payment and pay monetary sanctions. Counsel was sanctioned for citing eight nonexistent cases in briefs filed on behalf of his client, in an appeal concerning the termination of parental rights. The court found that Counsel violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 by submitting fictitious case citations generated by AI without verification. As a result, he was ordered to disgorge $6,925.62 received for his work on the appeal and pay an additional $1,000 in monetary sanctions.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Attorney ordered to disgorge payment and pay monetary sanctions; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Disgorgement plus bar referral is the floor for unverified AI citations; require second-attorney verification pre-filing.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent case cited in briefs; court verified no such docket or decision exists. Outcome: Attorney ordered to disgorge payment and pay monetary sanctions. Counsel was sanctioned for citing eight nonexistent cases in briefs filed on behalf of his client, in an appeal concerning the termination of parental rights. The court found that Counsel violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 by submitting fictitious case citations generated by AI without verification. As a result, he was ordered to disgorge $6,925.62 received for his work on the appeal and pay an additional $1,000 in monetary sanctions. The court also directed that a copy of the opinion be sent to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
Operational lesson
Disgorgement plus bar referral is the floor for unverified AI citations; require second-attorney verification pre-filing.
Record details
IllinoisSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Illinois
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit7th Circuit
DateJul 21, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeAttorney ordered to disgorge payment and pay monetary sanctions
Known amount$7,925
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Attorney ordered to disgorge payment and pay monetary sanctions
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
12 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent case cited in briefs; court verified no such docket or decision exists.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated quote attributed to a nonexistent case; court found no Illinois, other state, or federal decision contains it.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent case admitted by counsel after rule to show cause.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent case admitted by counsel after rule to show cause.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent case used to support a Faretta inquiry requirement; court noted no Illinois case imposes Faretta in parental rights cases.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent case admitted by counsel after rule to show cause.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent case admitted by counsel after rule to show cause.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent case cited to support self-representation/de novo review; later 'replacement' case did not support the proposition.
Show 4 additional discrepancies
- Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent case cited for ineffective-assistance principles; later 'replacement' case did not support the proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Real case invoked in response as supporting self-representation/de novo review; court found it does not address those issues.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Real case invoked in response as supporting Strickland ineffective-assistance standard; court found it does not discuss ineffective assistance.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quote misattributed to an existing case; court confirmed the case contains no such language and does not discuss incarceration.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re Boy?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent case cited in briefs; court verified no such docket or decision exists. Outcome: Attorney ordered to disgorge payment and pay monetary sanctions. Counsel was sanctioned for citing eight nonexistent cases in briefs filed on behalf of his client, in an appeal concerning the termination of parental rights. The court found that Counsel violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 by submitting fictitious case citations generated by AI without verification. As a result, he was ordered to disgorge $6,925.62 received for his work on the appeal and pay an additional $1,000 in monetary sanctions.…
- Why does In re Boy matter for legal AI risk?
- Disgorgement plus bar referral is the floor for unverified AI citations; require second-attorney verification pre-filing.
- What does the public record establish about In re Boy?
- 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 In re Boy 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.