Mata v. Avianca, Inc
S.D. New York · Jun 22, 2023
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. New York
- Record ID
- mata-v-avianca-inc-2023-06-22
- Observed outcome
- The court imposed a $5,000 joint and several monetary sanction on the two attorneys and their law firm, and ordered them to send letters to their client and the judges whose names were falsely used in the fabricated opinions.
- Known monetary consequence
- $5,000
Why this matter warrants attention
Counsel filed authorities generated through ChatGPT that did not exist, then submitted purported copies after the problem was raised. The court imposed a $5,000 sanction and required notice to the client and judges whose names appeared on the fabricated opinions.
The sanction was driven by counsel's gatekeeping failure and the decision to stand behind false material after receiving notice, not simply by the use of a generative tool.
Mata is the operational anchor for citation verification, prompt correction, and supervising-attorney signoff. A recoverable research error became a sanctions matter because the filing and response process failed.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- $5,000
- Procedural posture
- Opinion and Order on Sanctions issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York following a show cause hearing.
CourtListener / RECAP
Docket or legal-document mirror. The recorded link is hosted by a legal document repository or mirror.
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 attorneys admitted to using ChatGPT for research.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. 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
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.