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 Samuel
CC New York · Jan 11, 2024
NY / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authorityothertrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Suggested the O&J should include provisions for changing/revising/removing a previously drafted will; court noted no one, including a guardian, can execute a will for another and such provisions are not part of guardianship orders. Outcome: Striking of Filing + Sanctions Hearing Scheduled.
- Why the court cared
- The court emphasized that while the use of AI tools is not forbidden per se, attorneys must personally verify all outputs. The violation was deemed "frivolous conduct" because the lawyer falsely certified the validity of the filing. The judge stressed the dangers to the judicial system from fictional citations: wasting time, misleading parties, degrading trust in courts, and harming the profession’s reputation
- Why it matters now
- A two-minute Lexis check on every cite is non-negotiable; time pressure is not a defense to Rule 130-1.1 sanctions.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Suggested the O&J should include provisions for changing/revising/removing a previously drafted will; court noted no one, including a guardian, can execute a will for another and such provisions are not part of guardianship orders. Outcome: Striking of Filing + Sanctions Hearing Scheduled.
AI Use
Osborne’s attorney, under time pressure, submitted reply papers heavily relying on a website or tool that used generative AI. The submission included fabricated judicial authorities presented without independent verification. No admission by the lawyer was recorded, but the court independently verified the error.
Hallucination Details
Of the six cases cited in the October 11, 2023 reply, five were found to be either fictional or materially erroneous. A basic Lexis search would have revealed the fabrications instantly. The court drew explicit comparisons to the Mata v. Avianca fiasco.
Ruling/Sanction
The court struck the offending reply papers from the record and ordered the attorney to appear for a sanctions hearing under New York’s Rule 130-1.1. Potential sanctions include financial penalties or other disciplinary measures.
Key Judicial Reasoning
The court emphasized that while the use of AI tools is not forbidden per se, attorneys must personally verify all outputs. The violation was deemed "frivolous conduct" because the lawyer falsely certified the validity of the filing. The judge stressed the dangers to the judicial system from fictional citations: wasting time, misleading parties, degrading trust in courts, and harming the profession’s reputation.
Operational lesson
A two-minute Lexis check on every cite is non-negotiable; time pressure is not a defense to Rule 130-1.1 sanctions.
Record details
New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCC New York
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateJan 11, 2024
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeStriking of Filing + Sanctions Hearing Scheduled
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
Striking of Filing + Sanctions Hearing Scheduled
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
9 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Suggested the O&J should include provisions for changing/revising/removing a previously drafted will; court noted no one, including a guardian, can execute a will for another and such provisions are not part of guardianship orders.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Claimed an attorney drafter must obtain medical professional input when drafting a new will; court stated no such requirement exists.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Asserted that an Article 81 guardian is automatically in a position of undue influence over the ward; court rejected any automatic presumption.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Argued undue influence was 'abundantly clear' merely because the guardian was named executor/beneficiary; court explained such facts alone do not establish undue influence.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Implied that because the drafting attorney also represented the guardian in the Article 81 case, the decedent could not have been of sound mind; court held this is a question of fact, not a per se rule.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief dated Oct. 11, 2023 cited five of six cases that the court found were erroneous or nonexistent after a simple Lexis/Westlaw check.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Reply brief asserted material factual statements about case law and court holdings that the court determined were false.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Argued that appointment of an Article 81 guardian meant the decedent lacked testamentary capacity as a matter of law; court held this is an incorrect reading of the law.
Show 1 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Argued that a guardian must obtain Supreme Court authority to allow the ward to execute a will; court held no such requirement exists and the O&J did not prohibit the decedent from executing or revoking a will.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Matter of Samuel?
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Suggested the O&J should include provisions for changing/revising/removing a previously drafted will; court noted no one, including a guardian, can execute a will for another and such provisions are not part of guardianship orders. Outcome: Striking of Filing + Sanctions Hearing Scheduled.
- Why does Matter of Samuel matter for legal AI risk?
- A two-minute Lexis check on every cite is non-negotiable; time pressure is not a defense to Rule 130-1.1 sanctions.
- What does the public record establish about Matter of Samuel?
- 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 Matter of Samuel 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.