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 R.L.
CA Illinois · Aug 20, 2025
IL / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfamilyappellate
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited In re C.P., 2018 IL App (4th) 180378, which the court found does not exist; court flagged this as an example of counsel citing nonexistent authority. Outcome: No additional sanctions (given sanctions for Counsel in other cases).
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is No additional sanctions (given sanctions for Counsel in other cases); the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Repeat offenders face compounded sanctions across appeals; track AI-citation incidents across every matter firm-wide.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited In re C.P., 2018 IL App (4th) 180378, which the court found does not exist; court flagged this as an example of counsel citing nonexistent authority. Outcome: No additional sanctions (given sanctions for Counsel in other cases).
Operational lesson
Repeat offenders face compounded sanctions across appeals; track AI-citation incidents across every matter firm-wide.
Record details
IllinoisSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Illinois
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit7th Circuit
DateAug 20, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeNo additional sanctions (given sanctions for Counsel in other cases)
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
No additional sanctions (given sanctions for Counsel in other cases)
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 | Appellant cited In re C.P., 2018 IL App (4th) 180378, which the court found does not exist; court flagged this as an example of counsel citing nonexistent authority.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found counsel repeatedly cited multiple cases that do not exist for propositions of law (basis for sanctions in other appeals).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re R.L.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited In re C.P., 2018 IL App (4th) 180378, which the court found does not exist; court flagged this as an example of counsel citing nonexistent authority. Outcome: No additional sanctions (given sanctions for Counsel in other cases).
- Why does In re R.L. matter for legal AI risk?
- Repeat offenders face compounded sanctions across appeals; track AI-citation incidents across every matter firm-wide.
- What does the public record establish about In re R.L.?
- 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 R.L. 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.