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.
Ivins v KMA Consulting Engineers & Ors
Queensland IRC · Jun 2, 2025
AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Complainant cited a non-existent authority; the Commission searched and confirmed it is not an actual QIRC decision. Outcome: Relevant Submissions ignored. The Complainant, who was self-represented, used artificial intelligence to assist in preparing her submissions, which included fictitious case citations. The Commission noted the potential seriousness of relying on fabricated citations but did not impose any sanctions on the Complainant, as she was self-represented.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Relevant Submissions ignored; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Self-represented complainant escaped sanction for fabricated QIRC cites; commission expressly noted a lawyer would face misconduct referral.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Complainant cited a non-existent authority; the Commission searched and confirmed it is not an actual QIRC decision. Outcome: Relevant Submissions ignored. The Complainant, who was self-represented, used artificial intelligence to assist in preparing her submissions, which included fictitious case citations. The Commission noted the potential seriousness of relying on fabricated citations but did not impose any sanctions on the Complainant, as she was self-represented. The judge held:"In relation to the issue of the Complainant's reference to what appears to be fictitious case authorities, this is potentially a serious matter because it can be viewed as an attempt to mislead the Commission. If an admitted legal practitioner were to do this, there would be grounds to refer the practitioner to the Legal Services Commission for an allegation of misconduct.[...]Given that the Complainant is self-represented, I intend to take the same approach that I adopted in Goodchild and simply afford that part of the Complainant's submissions that deals with the two authorities no weight in determining the two applications. "
Operational lesson
Self-represented complainant escaped sanction for fabricated QIRC cites; commission expressly noted a lawyer would face misconduct referral.
Record details
CourtQueensland IRC
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJun 2, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeRelevant Submissions ignored
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
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
Relevant Submissions ignored
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 | Complainant cited a non-existent authority; the Commission searched and confirmed it is not an actual QIRC decision.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Complainant cited a non-existent authority; the Commission searched and found no such QIRC decision.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Ivins v KMA Consulting Engineers & Ors?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Complainant cited a non-existent authority; the Commission searched and confirmed it is not an actual QIRC decision. Outcome: Relevant Submissions ignored. The Complainant, who was self-represented, used artificial intelligence to assist in preparing her submissions, which included fictitious case citations. The Commission noted the potential seriousness of relying on fabricated citations but did not impose any sanctions on the Complainant, as she was self-represented.…
- Why does Ivins v KMA Consulting Engineers & Ors matter for legal AI risk?
- Self-represented complainant escaped sanction for fabricated QIRC cites; commission expressly noted a lawyer would face misconduct referral.
- What does the public record establish about Ivins v KMA Consulting Engineers & Ors?
- 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 Ivins v KMA Consulting Engineers & Ors 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.