Kertesz v. Colony Tire Corp et al.
D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. New Jersey
- Record ID
- kertesz-v-colony-tire-corp-et-al-2025-09-30
- Observed outcome
- The Court issued a warning to counsel and excluded the amended briefs from consideration, treating arguments supported by the fabricated citations as unsupported.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court issued a warning by refusing to consider the attorney's amended briefs and treating arguments supported by AI-generated fabricated citations as unsupported. The judge explicitly cautioned that failure to exercise proper oversight when using AI in legal filings is sanctionable under professional conduct rules.
The Court determined that it would not consider the amended briefs or errata, reasoning that the integrity of the record required treating propositions supported only by incorrect or made-up citations as unsupported.
A Notice of Errata won't always save you — next judge may sanction; build verification before filing, not after.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Employment
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter was before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The AI-related issue arose following the filing of a Notice of Errata by Plaintiff's counsel on July 24, 2025, during the summary judgment briefing phase.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court opinion refers to the attorney's use of generative AI without naming a specific tool.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all case law and quotations generated or assisted by AI tools before filing.
- Conduct independent manual checks of all citations against primary legal databases to ensure accuracy.
- Establish a supervisory workflow where a human attorney reviews all AI-generated content for factual and legal accuracy.