in re: Nasser
E.D. Michigan (Bankruptcy) · Aug 15, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Court issued a formal warning to Plaintiffs' counsel after identifying fabricated statutory quotations and non-existent record citations in a legal filing. The Court explicitly attributed these errors to the likely use of generative artificial intelligence and cautioned that such conduct is unacceptable in future submissions.
- Why the court cared
- The Court reasoned that the submission of paraphrased language as block-quoted statutes and the inclusion of non-existent quotes from the Complaint undermined the veracity of the filing and necessitated a formal warning to counsel.
- Why it matters now
- Block-quoted statutes must be copy-pasted from primary sources, never paraphrased or AI-summarized as verbatim text.
Why this matter is tracked
In an adversary proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court identified significant errors in the Plaintiffs' Response to a Motion to Dismiss. The Court noted that the Response contained block-quoted statutory provisions that were actually paraphrases materially different from the original text. Additionally, the Response included purported quotations from the Complaint that did not exist in the original filing. The Court expressed concern that these errors resulted from the use of generative artificial intelligence. While the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss in part, it issued a formal warning to counsel regarding the submission of inaccurate filings and the potential misuse of AI tools, stating that future errors of this nature would not be tolerated.
Block-quoted statutes must be copy-pasted from primary sources, never paraphrased or AI-summarized as verbatim text.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court expressed concern regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence.
The court issued this warning in an Opinion granting in part and denying in part a Defendant's Motion to Dismiss an Adversary Complaint.
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.
- False Quotes: Legal Norm | Plaintiffs’ Response presented three statutory provisions in block quotations that were actually paraphrases materially different from the statutes.
- False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiffs’ Response included purported quotations from the Complaint that were not actually in the Complaint.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiffs argued MCL 339.2512c creates a technical trust over property management funds; the Court held the statute imposes duties but does not create an express or technical trust.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in in re: Nasser?
- The Court issued a formal warning to Plaintiffs' counsel after identifying fabricated statutory quotations and non-existent record citations in a legal filing. The Court explicitly attributed these errors to the likely use of generative artificial intelligence and cautioned that such conduct is unacceptable in future submissions.
- Why does in re: Nasser matter for legal AI risk?
- Block-quoted statutes must be copy-pasted from primary sources, never paraphrased or AI-summarized as verbatim text.
- What does the public record establish about in re: Nasser?
- 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: Nasser 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.