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 Richburg
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 95/100. 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 Richburg

D. South Carolina (Bankruptcy) · Aug 27, 2025

SC / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationstrialProfessional
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court sanctioned counsel for a Rule 9011 violation after he submitted AI-generated, nonexistent case citations in a motion. The court ordered counsel to complete three hours of CLE on ethics and AI, declining to impose monetary sanctions due to procedural constraints following the voluntary dismissal of the underlying motion.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that counsel failed to meet the duty of objective reasonableness under Rule 9011 by relying on AI-generated content without verifying the existence or accuracy of the cited authorities. The court determined that while the conduct was sanctionable, monetary sanctions were barred because the show cause order was issued after the voluntary dismissal of the motion.
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
Explore SCOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. South Carolina (Bankruptcy)
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit4th Circuit
DateAug 27, 2025
MI
AI toolMicrosoft CoPilot
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeCounsel was ordered to complete three hours of CLE on ethics and the use of AI in legal practice, in addition to standard bar requirements.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionCounsel was ordered to complete three hours of mandatory CLE on ethics and AI usage.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

Counsel admitted using Microsoft CoPilot to generate citations.

Procedural posture

The court issued a show cause order sua sponte regarding potential Rule 9011 violations after discovering fabricated citations in a motion for preliminary injunction. Following a hearing, the court issued an order imposing nonmonetary sanctions.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
The court sanctioned counsel for a Rule 9011 violation after he submitted AI-generated, nonexistent case citations in a motion. The court ordered counsel to complete three hours of CLE on ethics and AI, declining to impose monetary sanctions due to procedural constraints following the voluntary dismissal of the underlying motion.
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.

Jurkowski v. BerkowitzSC DC · Apr 21, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trialMegan E. Bryan v. Child Support Enforcement Agency, State of HawaiʻiSC Hawaiʻi · Mar 30, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trialNelson L. Bruce v. The United StatesD. South Carolina · Feb 9, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trialCherleatha B. v. Frank BisignanoD. South Carolina · Dec 29, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + trialGlenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and OthersSC Massachussetts · May 18, 2026same jurisdiction · trialG.P. v. Jose Hernandez ArevaloW.D. Washington · Sep 8, 2026fake citations + trial