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.
Kertesz v. Colony Tire Corp et al.
D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2025
NJ / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesemploymenttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Errata acknowledging 'erroneous citation ... errors' in four briefs caused by the attorney's use of AI; the Court treated arguments supported by incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported and declined to consider the amended briefs on those points. Outcome: Warning. Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Errata admitting that erroneous citation and quotation errors in multiple briefs resulted from the attorney's use of generative AI. The Court refused to consider the amended briefs/errata for purposes of its decision and treated any propositions supported solely by the incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- A Notice of Errata won't always save you — next judge may sanction; build verification before filing, not after.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Errata acknowledging 'erroneous citation ... errors' in four briefs caused by the attorney's use of AI; the Court treated arguments supported by incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported and declined to consider the amended briefs on those points. Outcome: Warning. Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Errata admitting that erroneous citation and quotation errors in multiple briefs resulted from the attorney's use of generative AI. The Court refused to consider the amended briefs/errata for purposes of its decision and treated any propositions supported solely by the incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported. The Court declined to impose sanctions but warned the attorney that relying on AI without proper oversight can be sanctionable under the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct.
Operational lesson
A Notice of Errata won't always save you — next judge may sanction; build verification before filing, not after.
Record details
New JerseySingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. New Jersey
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit3rd Circuit
DateSep 30, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Warning
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Errata acknowledging 'erroneous citation ... errors' in four briefs caused by the attorney's use of AI; the Court treated arguments supported by incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported and declined to consider the amended briefs on those points.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Attorney's use of AI produced incorrect quotations and citation errors in submitted briefs; the Court noted these false quotations/citations and cautioned counsel that such misrepresentations violate professional conduct rules and risk sanctions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Kertesz v. Colony Tire Corp et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Errata acknowledging 'erroneous citation ... errors' in four briefs caused by the attorney's use of AI; the Court treated arguments supported by incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported and declined to consider the amended briefs on those points. Outcome: Warning. Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Errata admitting that erroneous citation and quotation errors in multiple briefs resulted from the attorney's use of generative AI. The Court refused to consider the amended briefs/errata for purposes of its decision and treated any propositions supported solely by the incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported.…
- Why does Kertesz v. Colony Tire Corp et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- A Notice of Errata won't always save you — next judge may sanction; build verification before filing, not after.
- What does the public record establish about Kertesz v. Colony Tire Corp et al.?
- 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 Kertesz v. Colony Tire Corp et al. 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.