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.
Johnson v. Dunn
N.D. Alabama · Jul 23, 2025
AL / federalEditorial impact: career endingfake citationsmisrepresented authoritydisqualificationcivil rights
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Citation to United States v. Baker, 539 F. App’x 937, 943 (11th Cir. 2013) as confirming broad discovery rights; court found the citation as styled does not exist and the volume/page cited corresponds to Williams v. Morahan, not Baker, and does not discuss discovery. Outcome: Public reprimand, disqualification from the case, and referral to the Bar.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Public reprimand, disqualification from the case, and referral to the Bar; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Apologies do not cure AI fabrications; ChatGPT citations get you disqualified and named in a published opinion.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Citation to United States v. Baker, 539 F. App’x 937, 943 (11th Cir. 2013) as confirming broad discovery rights; court found the citation as styled does not exist and the volume/page cited corresponds to Williams v. Morahan, not Baker, and does not discuss discovery. Outcome: Public reprimand, disqualification from the case, and referral to the Bar. In their Response, Counsel confessed to the use of AI tools in their Response to the OSC.(As recounted by Above the Law, the law firm involved quickly deleted a recent post they made about using AI.)In the Order, the judge prefaced her findings by noting that "Even in cases like this one, where lawyers who cite AI hallucinations accept responsibility and apologize profusely, much damage is done. The opposing party expends resources identifying and exposing the fabrication; the court spends time reviewing materials, holding hearings, deliberating about sanctions, and explaining its ruling; the substance of the case is delayed; and public confidence about the trustworthiness of legal proceedings may be diminished."The court further reasoned that "At the threshold, the court rejects the invitation to consider that actual authorities stand for the proposition that the bogus authorities were offered to support. That is a stroke of pure luck for these lawyers, and one that did not remediate the waste and harm their misconduct wrought. Further, any sanctions discount on this basis would amplify the siren call of unverified AI for lawyers who are already confident in their legal conclusion. This court will have no part of that."It added that: "Likewise, the court rejects the invitation to consider that the involved lawyers and firm have been deeply embarrassed in media reports. For many very good reasons, courts traditionally have not relied on the media to do the difficult work of professional discipline, and this court is not about to start."
Operational lesson
Apologies do not cure AI fabrications; ChatGPT citations get you disqualified and named in a published opinion.
Record details
AlabamaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtN.D. Alabama
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit11th Circuit
DateJul 23, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typeLawyer
OutcomePublic reprimand, disqualification from the case, and referral to the Bar
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Public reprimand, disqualification from the case, and referral to the Bar
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Citation to United States v. Baker, 539 F. App’x 937, 943 (11th Cir. 2013) as confirming broad discovery rights; court found the citation as styled does not exist and the volume/page cited corresponds to Williams v. Morahan, not Baker, and does not discuss discovery.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Citation to Kelley v. City of Birmingham, 2021 WL 1118031, at *2 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 24, 2021) to avoid delaying a deposition; court and opposing party could find no such federal case—only a 1939 Alabama Court of Appeals traffic case with that style.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Citation to Greer v. Warden, FCC Coleman I, 2020 WL 3060362, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2020) as rejecting an inmate’s request to delay a deposition; court found no such case exists nor a similar case supporting that proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Citation to Wilson v. Jackson, 2006 WL 8438651, at *2 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 27, 2006) for granting a Rule 30(a)(2)(B) motion; court found no such case and that the Westlaw number points to an unrelated maritime case in S.D.W. Va. (Douglas v. Ingram Barge Co.).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation to Williams v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., No. 3:05-cv-479, 2006 WL 3343787, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2006) for the rule that general objections are useless; court noted a case with that style exists but not with that citation/proposition combination.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Johnson v. Dunn?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Citation to United States v. Baker, 539 F. App’x 937, 943 (11th Cir. 2013) as confirming broad discovery rights; court found the citation as styled does not exist and the volume/page cited corresponds to Williams v. Morahan, not Baker, and does not discuss discovery. Outcome: Public reprimand, disqualification from the case, and referral to the Bar.…
- Why does Johnson v. Dunn matter for legal AI risk?
- Apologies do not cure AI fabrications; ChatGPT citations get you disqualified and named in a published opinion.
- What does the public record establish about Johnson v. Dunn?
- 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 Johnson v. Dunn 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.