Jacobs v. Timberlake
CA Louisiana (5d) · May 12, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court ordered counsel to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for citing non-existent legal authority. Counsel must produce the cited case or explain its origin and disclose whether generative AI was used in the drafting process, including the verification protocols applied to the legal research.
- Why the court cared
- The court determined that the citation could not be verified by the parties or the court, and that the subsequent removal of the citation without explanation necessitated a formal inquiry into counsel's research practices and potential use of generative AI.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and family involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to Show Cause in CA Louisiana (5d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
In Jacobs v. Timberlake, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause against counsel for the relator, A. Camille Patti, regarding the inclusion of a potentially fabricated legal citation. The court and the respondent were unable to locate the cited case, Harvey v. Harvey, 13-0253 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/30/13), 127 So.3d 156. After the relator filed a supplemental brief removing the citation without explanation, the court ordered counsel to produce the opinion or explain the citation's origin. Additionally, the court mandated that counsel disclose whether generative artificial intelligence was used in the preparation of the writ application and describe the verification steps taken to ensure the validity of cited authorities.
This matter connects fake citations and family involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to Show Cause in CA Louisiana (5d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court ordered disclosure of any generative AI tool used.
The court issued a rule to show cause on its own motion following a writ application in which the relator cited an unverified case.
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 | Counsel cited Harvey v. Harvey, 13-0253 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/30/13), 127 So.3d 156, which the Court and Respondent were unable to locate; counsel removed the citation in a supplemental brief and was ordered to produce the opinion or explain the citation and disclose any AI use.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Jacobs v. Timberlake?
- The court ordered counsel to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for citing non-existent legal authority. Counsel must produce the cited case or explain its origin and disclose whether generative AI was used in the drafting process, including the verification protocols applied to the legal research.
- Why does Jacobs v. Timberlake matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and family involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to Show Cause in CA Louisiana (5d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Jacobs v. Timberlake?
- 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 Jacobs v. Timberlake 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.