AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesIn re: Pamela Williams
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

In re: Pamela Williams

N.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy) · Oct 30, 2025

GA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsbankruptcytrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified a fabricated case citation in a pro se debtor's filing, characterizing it as a likely AI 'hallucination.' While the court noted the error and referenced other cases where sanctions were imposed for similar conduct, it did not impose sanctions in this specific instance, denying the motion on other legal grounds.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'White v. Bank of America, 291 Ga. 367 (2012)'; the Court was unable to locate this case and described the citation as incorrect and possibly the product of an AI 'hallucination.'
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding, the pro se debtor filed a motion to reconsider an order denying a motion to strike. In support of her argument regarding standing, the debtor cited 'White v. Bank of America, 291 Ga. 367 (2012).' The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia was unable to locate the cited case, noting the citation appeared incorrect and was likely the product of an AI 'hallucination.' The court denied the debtor's motion on substantive grounds, citing the lack of legal merit and jurisdictional limitations due to a pending appeal. The court also referenced other recent bankruptcy decisions that have addressed the risks of relying on fabricated AI-generated case law.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

GeorgiaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore GAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtN.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy)
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit11th Circuit
DateOct 30, 2025
UN
AI toolunspecified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court denied the debtor's motion to reconsider.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court refers to AI hallucination without naming a specific tool.

Procedural posture

Order denying debtor's motion to reconsider an order denying a motion to strike.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'White v. Bank of America, 291 Ga. 367 (2012)'; the Court was unable to locate this case and described the citation as incorrect and possibly the product of an AI 'hallucination.'

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re: Pamela Williams?
The court identified a fabricated case citation in a pro se debtor's filing, characterizing it as a likely AI 'hallucination.' While the court noted the error and referenced other cases where sanctions were imposed for similar conduct, it did not impose sanctions in this specific instance, denying the motion on other legal grounds.
Why does In re: Pamela Williams matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about In re: Pamela 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: Pamela 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.

Chamberlain v. City of AlbanyM.D. Georgia · May 1, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsTamisha Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia et al/SC Georgia · Jan 6, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsNichols v. WalmartS.D. Georgia · Apr 23, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsNoella P. Turgeon v. FHLMCD. New Hampshire · Aug 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)In re Lisa CatoD. D.C. (Bankruptcy) · Jul 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)In re Nicholia Cherry-CrocketteD. New Jersey (Bankruptcy) · May 20, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)