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: Turner
Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board · Jul 9, 2025
IA / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
The Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board moved to strike several of Turner’s reinstatement-related filings after identifying an apparently AI-generated citation to “In re Mears, 979 N.W.2d 122 (Iowa 2022).” The motion says that authority either does not exist or does not support the propositions asserted and seeks removal of the exhibit, reinstatement brief, and proof-of-payment filings.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Motion stricken; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Disciplinary boards are now striking filings for imaginary cases; every citation must be clickable in Westlaw before you sign.
Why this matter is tracked
The Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board moved to strike several of Turner’s reinstatement-related filings after identifying an apparently AI-generated citation to “In re Mears, 979 N.W.2d 122 (Iowa 2022).” The motion says that authority either does not exist or does not support the propositions asserted and seeks removal of the exhibit, reinstatement brief, and proof-of-payment filings.
Operational lesson
Disciplinary boards are now striking filings for imaginary cases; every citation must be clickable in Westlaw before you sign.
Record details
IowaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtIowa Attorney Disciplinary Board
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit8th Circuit
DateJul 9, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMotion stricken
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
Motion stricken
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | One "imaginary case" cited in several filings.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in in re: Turner?
- The Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board moved to strike several of Turner’s reinstatement-related filings after identifying an apparently AI-generated citation to “In re Mears, 979 N.W.2d 122 (Iowa 2022).” The motion says that authority either does not exist or does not support the propositions asserted and seeks removal of the exhibit, reinstatement brief, and proof-of-payment filings.
- Why does in re: Turner matter for legal AI risk?
- Disciplinary boards are now striking filings for imaginary cases; every citation must be clickable in Westlaw before you sign.
- What does the public record establish about in re: Turner?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this in re: Turner summary?
- The recorded source is abajournal.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.