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: Loletha Hale, Esq. (Boston v. Williams)
N.D. Georgia · Oct 28, 2025
GA / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authoritytorttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Scanlan v. Tate Supply, Inc., 303 Ga. App. 9 (2010) as holding due diligence in service is a jury question; court found Scanlan holds the opposite (diligence is for the trial court). Outcome: Order to notify clients; Order to file this opinion in all new cases for five years. Party later filed for reconsideration, arguing that the judge had been biased; this failed (see here).
- Why the court cared
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Scanlan v. Tate Supply, Inc., 303 Ga. App. 9 (2010) as holding due diligence in service is a jury question; court found Scanlan holds the opposite (diligence is for the trial court). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Akuoko v. Martin, 298 Ga. App. 364 (2009) as supporting that due diligence is a jury question; court noted Akuoko actually treats diligence as a question for the trial court. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited Jenkins v. Roper, 313 Ga. App. 189 (2011); court found no such case at that citation and treated it as a non-existent/miscited authority.
- Why it matters now
- A five-year order to attach the sanction opinion to every new case is a scarlet-letter sanction; one fabrication can define a career.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Scanlan v. Tate Supply, Inc., 303 Ga. App. 9 (2010) as holding due diligence in service is a jury question; court found Scanlan holds the opposite (diligence is for the trial court). Outcome: Order to notify clients; Order to file this opinion in all new cases for five years. Party later filed for reconsideration, arguing that the judge had been biased; this failed (see here).
Operational lesson
A five-year order to attach the sanction opinion to every new case is a scarlet-letter sanction; one fabrication can define a career.
Record details
GeorgiaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtN.D. Georgia
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit11th Circuit
DateOct 28, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeOrder to notify clients; Order to file this opinion in all new cases for five years
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Order to notify clients; Order to file this opinion in all new cases for five years
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Scanlan v. Tate Supply, Inc., 303 Ga. App. 9 (2010) as holding due diligence in service is a jury question; court found Scanlan holds the opposite (diligence is for the trial court).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Akuoko v. Martin, 298 Ga. App. 364 (2009) as supporting that due diligence is a jury question; court noted Akuoko actually treats diligence as a question for the trial court.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited Jenkins v. Roper, 313 Ga. App. 189 (2011); court found no such case at that citation and treated it as a non-existent/miscited authority.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re: Loletha Hale, Esq. (Boston v. Williams)?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Scanlan v. Tate Supply, Inc., 303 Ga. App. 9 (2010) as holding due diligence in service is a jury question; court found Scanlan holds the opposite (diligence is for the trial court). Outcome: Order to notify clients; Order to file this opinion in all new cases for five years. Party later filed for reconsideration, arguing that the judge had been biased; this failed (see here).
- Why does In re: Loletha Hale, Esq. (Boston v. Williams) matter for legal AI risk?
- A five-year order to attach the sanction opinion to every new case is a scarlet-letter sanction; one fabrication can define a career.
- What does the public record establish about In re: Loletha Hale, Esq. (Boston v. Williams)?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this In re: Loletha Hale, Esq. (Boston v. Williams) 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.