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 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Lnu v. Blanche
9th Cir. CA · Jun 3, 2026
/ federalEditorial impact: career endingfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityimmigration
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a case that does not exist. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; 6-month Suspension; Notification Requirement; Bar Suspension.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanction; 6-month Suspension; Notification Requirement; Bar Suspension; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction; 6-month Suspension; Notification Requirement; Bar Suspension in 9th Cir. CA, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a case that does not exist. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; 6-month Suspension; Notification Requirement; Bar Suspension.
Operational lesson
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction; 6-month Suspension; Notification Requirement; Bar Suspension in 9th Cir. CA, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
Court9th Cir. CA
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJun 3, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary Sanction; 6-month Suspension; Notification Requirement; Bar Suspension
Known amount$5,000
Professional sanctionYes
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
Monetary Sanction; 6-month Suspension; Notification Requirement; Bar Suspension
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
14 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a case that does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a case that does not exist.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quotation attributed to Kamalthas does not appear in that opinion.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quotation attributed to Avendano-Hernandez does not appear in that opinion.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Real cases were represented as supporting propositions they do not discuss (mischaracterization of holdings).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Real case cited for a point about affidavits when the opinion does not discuss affidavits.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Additional fabricated citations identified in other briefs filed by the same attorney.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated citations identified in another matter filed by the same attorney.
Show 6 additional discrepancies
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a case that does not exist; Court found the citation fabricated and replacement citation (Udo) did not support the claimed proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a second case that does not exist; Court found no plausible typographical explanation and replacement citation (Lai) did not support the original point.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quotation attributed to Kamalthas appears in the brief but the quoted language does not appear in Kamalthas; Court treated this as a false quotation.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quotation attributed to Avendano-Hernandez does not appear in that opinion; Court flagged as misattributed quotation.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found that Singh was cited for propositions about adverse credibility and translation errors although the opinion concerns timeliness/equitable tolling; characterized as gross misrepresentation of a real case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified multiple additional fabricated citations in other briefs filed by the same attorney (examples listed) and treated these as further fabricated authorities.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Lnu v. Blanche?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a case that does not exist. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; 6-month Suspension; Notification Requirement; Bar Suspension.
- Why does Lnu v. Blanche matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction; 6-month Suspension; Notification Requirement; Bar Suspension in 9th Cir. CA, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Lnu v. Blanche?
- 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 Lnu v. Blanche 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.