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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Jodell Dodge v. FirstService Residential Arizona LLC
D. Arizona · Dec 8, 2025
AZ / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritybar referral
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
After a Rule 11 hearing, the District of Arizona found a response brief contained two misrepresented case holdings, five misquoted cases, and one citation to a case that did not exist. Counsel acknowledged using a paid version of ChatGPT but also self-reported to the State Bar; the court imposed no further sanction and directed that the order be sent to the Arizona disciplinary committee.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited case does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Case exists but the pincite and support cited are incorrect; quoted proposition not at the cited page. || False Quotes: Case Law | Case exists but the quoted language does not appear at the cited location; pincite incorrect. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the brief attributed language to the case that does not appear there (misquoted/attributed). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Quoted language mostly correct but the brief improperly added wording ('discriminatory') and misattributed internally quoted language. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court concluded the cited case was relied upon for a proposition it does not actually support; the brief misstates the case's holdings.
- Why it matters now
- A bar referral can follow even without monetary sanctions when misquotes and misattributions compound across a single brief.
Why this matter is tracked
After a Rule 11 hearing, the District of Arizona found a response brief contained two misrepresented case holdings, five misquoted cases, and one citation to a case that did not exist. Counsel acknowledged using a paid version of ChatGPT but also self-reported to the State Bar; the court imposed no further sanction and directed that the order be sent to the Arizona disciplinary committee.
Operational lesson
A bar referral can follow even without monetary sanctions when misquotes and misattributions compound across a single brief.
Record details
ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Arizona
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateDec 8, 2025
FE
AI toolFederally Lawyer
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeBar Referral
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
Federally Lawyer is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Bar Referral
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited case does not exist.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Case exists but the pincite and support cited are incorrect; quoted proposition not at the cited page.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Case exists but the quoted language does not appear at the cited location; pincite incorrect.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the brief attributed language to the case that does not appear there (misquoted/attributed).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Quoted language mostly correct but the brief improperly added wording ('discriminatory') and misattributed internally quoted language.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court concluded the cited case was relied upon for a proposition it does not actually support; the brief misstates the case's holdings.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Jodell Dodge v. FirstService Residential Arizona LLC?
- After a Rule 11 hearing, the District of Arizona found a response brief contained two misrepresented case holdings, five misquoted cases, and one citation to a case that did not exist. Counsel acknowledged using a paid version of ChatGPT but also self-reported to the State Bar; the court imposed no further sanction and directed that the order be sent to the Arizona disciplinary committee.
- Why does Jodell Dodge v. FirstService Residential Arizona LLC matter for legal AI risk?
- A bar referral can follow even without monetary sanctions when misquotes and misattributions compound across a single brief.
- What does the public record establish about Jodell Dodge v. FirstService Residential Arizona LLC?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Jodell Dodge v. FirstService Residential Arizona LLC 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.