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.
Kaufman v. Upton
D. Massachusetts · Jan 21, 2026
MA / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationsbar referralothertrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found plaintiff's filings contained AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority; counsel attributed them to a version-control/clerical error and did not explain AI use; court treated them as false authority warranting referral. Outcome: Bar Referral.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found plaintiff's filings contained AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority; counsel attributed them to a version-control/clerical error and did not explain AI use; court treated them as false authority warranting referral.
- Why it matters now
- If citations are challenged, disclose AI use immediately; blaming 'clerical error' escalates a fine into a bar referral.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found plaintiff's filings contained AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority; counsel attributed them to a version-control/clerical error and did not explain AI use; court treated them as false authority warranting referral. Outcome: Bar Referral.
Operational lesson
If citations are challenged, disclose AI use immediately; blaming 'clerical error' escalates a fine into a bar referral.
Record details
MassachusettsSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Massachusetts
Jurisdictionfederal
CircuitNot recorded
DateJan 21, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeBar Referral
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) 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
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found plaintiff's filings contained AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority; counsel attributed them to a version-control/clerical error and did not explain AI use; court treated them as false authority warranting referral.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Kaufman v. Upton?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found plaintiff's filings contained AI-generated citations to nonexistent authority; counsel attributed them to a version-control/clerical error and did not explain AI use; court treated them as false authority warranting referral. Outcome: Bar Referral.
- Why does Kaufman v. Upton matter for legal AI risk?
- If citations are challenged, disclose AI use immediately; blaming 'clerical error' escalates a fine into a bar referral.
- What does the public record establish about Kaufman v. Upton?
- 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 Kaufman v. Upton 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.