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: Turner
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 90/100. 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: Turner

Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board · Jul 9, 2025

IA / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsadministrativetrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board moved to strike several of the respondent's filings because they contained a citation to a non-existent case, 'In re Mears,' which the Board identified as an apparent AI-generated hallucination. The motion seeks the removal of these filings from the court record.

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 Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board filed a motion to strike multiple reinstatement-related filings submitted by respondent Royce D. Turner. The Board identified that these filings, including an exhibit, a brief in support of an application for reinstatement, and a proof of payment, contained a citation to a non-existent case, 'In re Mears, 979 N.W.2d 122 (Iowa 2022).' The Board asserts that this citation appears to be AI-generated, as the case does not exist or does not support the propositions for which it was cited. The motion requests that the court strike the identified filings from the record to address the inclusion of fabricated legal authority in the respondent's submissions.

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
Explore IAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtIowa Attorney Disciplinary Board
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit8th Circuit
DateJul 9, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMotion to strike filed; status of the motion is pending.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The motion refers to AI-generated citations without naming a specific tool.

Procedural posture

Motion to strike filed by the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board on July 9, 2025.

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 | 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 the respondent's filings because they contained a citation to a non-existent case, 'In re Mears,' which the Board identified as an apparent AI-generated hallucination. The motion seeks the removal of these filings from the court record.
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.

Burnside v. Verdick, et al.S.D. Iowa · Apr 30, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trialApril Ann Nelson v. Navient Solutions, LLC, et al.S.D. Iowa · Sep 4, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + trialPhilippeaux v. United States, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Perry v. Social Security Administration, CommissionerN.D. Alabama · Aug 3, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)The JAAW Group, LLCGAO · Jul 31, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Alexander M. v. Frank BisignanoD. Maine · Jul 28, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)