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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
In re Richburg
D. South Carolina (Bankruptcy) · Aug 27, 2025
SC / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Motion cited a nonexistent case "In re Parkdale, LLC" to support that an LLC's assets are property of a member-debtor's estate; the court determined the case does not exist and was generated by AI. Outcome: 3 hours of CLE to be proven. Counsel filed a motion containing case citations that did not exist; counsel admitted the citations were generated by Microsoft CoPilot and not independently verified. The court found a Rule 9011 violation, declined to impose monetary sanctions because of procedural limits and dismissal, and ordered CLE focused on AI ethics.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is 3 hours of CLE to be proven; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Microsoft CoPilot is not a legal research tool; mandate an approved-tools list and require independent verification before any filing.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Motion cited a nonexistent case "In re Parkdale, LLC" to support that an LLC's assets are property of a member-debtor's estate; the court determined the case does not exist and was generated by AI. Outcome: 3 hours of CLE to be proven. Counsel filed a motion containing case citations that did not exist; counsel admitted the citations were generated by Microsoft CoPilot and not independently verified. The court found a Rule 9011 violation, declined to impose monetary sanctions because of procedural limits and dismissal, and ordered CLE focused on AI ethics.
Operational lesson
Microsoft CoPilot is not a legal research tool; mandate an approved-tools list and require independent verification before any filing.
Record details
South CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. South Carolina (Bankruptcy)
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit4th Circuit
DateAug 27, 2025
MI
AI toolMicrosoft CoPilot
Party typeLawyer
Outcome3 hours of CLE to be proven
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
Microsoft CoPilot is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
3 hours of CLE to be proven
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Motion cited a nonexistent case "In re Parkdale, LLC" to support that an LLC's assets are property of a member-debtor's estate; the court determined the case does not exist and was generated by AI.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Motion cited a nonexistent case "In re Ahn" for the same proposition; the court determined the citation was fabricated by AI and did not exist.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re Richburg?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Motion cited a nonexistent case "In re Parkdale, LLC" to support that an LLC's assets are property of a member-debtor's estate; the court determined the case does not exist and was generated by AI. Outcome: 3 hours of CLE to be proven. Counsel filed a motion containing case citations that did not exist; counsel admitted the citations were generated by Microsoft CoPilot and not independently verified. The court found a Rule 9011 violation, declined to impose monetary sanctions because of procedural limits and dismissal, and ordered CLE focused on AI ethics.
- Why does In re Richburg matter for legal AI risk?
- Microsoft CoPilot is not a legal research tool; mandate an approved-tools list and require independent verification before any filing.
- What does the public record establish about In re Richburg?
- 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 Richburg 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.