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.
Matter of Matos
SC New York · Nov 13, 2025
NY / stateEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityadministrative
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited and purportedly quoted this TTAB decision in his trial brief; TTAB found the citation/quote did not support the asserted proposition (case law was misrepresented). Outcome: Respondent publicly censured.
- Why the court cared
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited and purportedly quoted this TTAB decision in his trial brief; TTAB found the citation/quote did not support the asserted proposition (case law was misrepresented). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited and purportedly quoted this TTAB decision in his trial brief; TTAB found the citation/quote did not contain the purported language or support the proposition (misquoted or nonexistent). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited and purportedly quoted this TTAB decision in his trial brief; TTAB determined the citation/quote either did not exist in the case or did not support respondent's argument.
- Why it matters now
- A public censure in a TTAB/attorney-discipline matter follows you through PACER searches — assume every AI misstep becomes permanent public record.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited and purportedly quoted this TTAB decision in his trial brief; TTAB found the citation/quote did not support the asserted proposition (case law was misrepresented). Outcome: Respondent publicly censured.
Operational lesson
A public censure in a TTAB/attorney-discipline matter follows you through PACER searches — assume every AI misstep becomes permanent public record.
Record details
New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
CourtSC New York
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateNov 13, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeRespondent publicly censured
Known amountNot recorded
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
Respondent publicly censured
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited and purportedly quoted this TTAB decision in his trial brief; TTAB found the citation/quote did not support the asserted proposition (case law was misrepresented).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited and purportedly quoted this TTAB decision in his trial brief; TTAB found the citation/quote did not contain the purported language or support the proposition (misquoted or nonexistent).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited and purportedly quoted this TTAB decision in his trial brief; TTAB determined the citation/quote either did not exist in the case or did not support respondent's argument.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Matter of Matos?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent cited and purportedly quoted this TTAB decision in his trial brief; TTAB found the citation/quote did not support the asserted proposition (case law was misrepresented). Outcome: Respondent publicly censured.
- Why does Matter of Matos matter for legal AI risk?
- A public censure in a TTAB/attorney-discipline matter follows you through PACER searches — assume every AI misstep becomes permanent public record.
- What does the public record establish about Matter of Matos?
- 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 Matter of Matos 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.