AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesKattom v. Bondi
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 91/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Kattom v. Bondi

W.D. Louisiana · Mar 6, 2026

LA / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotescivil rightstrialMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court sanctioned attorney Kenneth A. Mayeaux $1,000 for filing a memorandum containing fabricated case citations and incorrect quotations generated by ChatGPT. The court held that the attorney failed to fulfill his Rule 11 duty to verify the accuracy of legal authority before submitting it to the court.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Memorandum cited cases that did not exist; Court found multiple fabricated case citations generated in the filing. || False Quotes: Case Law | Memorandum included incorrect quotations attributed to cases; Court identified several incorrect quotations in the filing.
Why it matters now
ChatGPT is not an approved legal research tool; ban consumer LLMs from citation drafting and log every research tool used.

Why this matter is tracked

In Kattom v. Bondi, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana sanctioned attorney Kenneth A. Mayeaux for filing a motion and memorandum containing fabricated legal citations and incorrect quotations. The attorney admitted to using ChatGPT to draft the memorandum without verifying the accuracy of the generated legal authority. The court found that the attorney violated his duty under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 to ensure that legal propositions and authority are trustworthy. Although the court acknowledged the attorney's candor, remedial measures, and lack of deceptive intent, it determined that these factors did not excuse the failure to verify submissions. The court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction, payable personally by the attorney.

Operational lesson

ChatGPT is not an approved legal research tool; ban consumer LLMs from citation drafting and log every research tool used.

Record details

LouisianaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore LAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtW.D. Louisiana
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit5th Circuit
DateMar 6, 2026
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction against the attorney, payable personally.
Known amount$1,000
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

Attorney used ChatGPT to draft the memorandum.

Procedural posture

The court issued an Order and Reasons following a show-cause proceeding regarding potential sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Memorandum cited cases that did not exist; Court found multiple fabricated case citations generated in the filing.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Memorandum included incorrect quotations attributed to cases; Court identified several incorrect quotations in the filing.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Kattom v. Bondi?
The court sanctioned attorney Kenneth A. Mayeaux $1,000 for filing a memorandum containing fabricated case citations and incorrect quotations generated by ChatGPT. The court held that the attorney failed to fulfill his Rule 11 duty to verify the accuracy of legal authority before submitting it to the court.
Why does Kattom v. Bondi matter for legal AI risk?
ChatGPT is not an approved legal research tool; ban consumer LLMs from citation drafting and log every research tool used.
What does the public record establish about Kattom v. Bondi?
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 Kattom v. Bondi 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.

Herbert Brooks v. Lowes Home Centers LLCW.D. Louisiana · May 18, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + trialTravis C. Mills et al. v. Rocket Mortgage LLC et al.W.D. Louisiana · Nov 6, 2025same court · fake citations + trialDaniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al.E.D. Louisiana · Mar 20, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + civil rightsHarvey v. Torrent Leasing & U.S. BankD. Nevada · Dec 15, 2025fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: ChatGPTTaiujuan Burches v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al.E.D. Lousiana · May 11, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotesWoodward Harbor L.L.C., et al. v. City of MandevilleE.D. Louisiana · Mar 5, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes