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 the Interest of R.A.
CA Iowa · Oct 1, 2025
IA / stateEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesappellate
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief included citations to cases and statutory text that the court could not locate; court concluded they were likely fabricated by AI and ordered counsel to explain. Outcome: Brief struck; Monetary penalty OR two hours of AI-specific CLE; referral to Bar.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Brief struck; Monetary penalty OR two hours of AI-specific CLE; referral to Bar; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- A struck brief plus mandatory AI-CLE plus bar referral is now the floor for fabricated citations — verification is non-negotiable.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief included citations to cases and statutory text that the court could not locate; court concluded they were likely fabricated by AI and ordered counsel to explain. Outcome: Brief struck; Monetary penalty OR two hours of AI-specific CLE; referral to Bar.
Operational lesson
A struck brief plus mandatory AI-CLE plus bar referral is now the floor for fabricated citations — verification is non-negotiable.
Record details
IowaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Iowa
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit8th Circuit
DateOct 1, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeBrief struck; Monetary penalty OR two hours of AI-specific CLE; referral to Bar
Known amount$150
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Brief struck; Monetary penalty OR two hours of AI-specific CLE; referral to Bar
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 | Reply brief included citations to cases and statutory text that the court could not locate; court concluded they were likely fabricated by AI and ordered counsel to explain.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief contained inaccurate quotations from purported authorities such that the court determined the quotations were not accurately derived from real sources.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In the Interest of R.A.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief included citations to cases and statutory text that the court could not locate; court concluded they were likely fabricated by AI and ordered counsel to explain. Outcome: Brief struck; Monetary penalty OR two hours of AI-specific CLE; referral to Bar.
- Why does In the Interest of R.A. matter for legal AI risk?
- A struck brief plus mandatory AI-CLE plus bar referral is now the floor for fabricated citations — verification is non-negotiable.
- What does the public record establish about In the Interest of R.A.?
- 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 the Interest of R.A. 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.