in re: Turner
Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board · Jul 9, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board
- Record ID
- in-re-turner-2025-07-09
- Observed outcome
- Motion to strike filed; status of the motion is pending.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Disciplinary boards are now striking filings for imaginary cases; every citation must be clickable in Westlaw before you sign.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Motion to strike filed by the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board on July 9, 2025.
abajournal.com
Secondary or other linked source. The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The motion refers to AI-generated citations without naming a specific tool.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all legal citations using reliable, primary legal research databases.
- Review all AI-generated research output for accuracy and existence of cited authorities before incorporating them into court filings.
- Establish a secondary review process for filings to detect potential hallucinations or errors in legal research.