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 Weber
CC New York · Oct 10, 2024
NY / stateEditorial impact: lowtrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Outcome: AI-assisted Evidence Inadmissible; Affirmative Duty to Disclose AI Use for Evidence Established.. AI UseIn a trust accounting proceeding, the objectant's damages expert testified that he used Microsoft Copilot (described as an AI chatbot) to cross-check his damages calculations presented in a supplemental report.Hallucination DetailsThe issue wasn't fabricated citations, but the reliability and verifiability of the AI's calculation process. The expert could not recall the specific prompts used, nor could he explain Copilot's underlying sources or methodology.…
- Why the court cared
- The court emphasized the "garbage in, garbage out" principle, stressing the need for users to understand AI inputs and processes. It stated that the mere fact AI is used does not make its output admissible; reliability must be established. The lack of transparency regarding the AI's process was a key factor in finding the evidence unreliable
- Why it matters now
- Disclose any AI-assisted evidence before offering it — undisclosed use triggers Frye hearings and automatic exclusion.
Why this matter is tracked
Outcome: AI-assisted Evidence Inadmissible; Affirmative Duty to Disclose
AI Use
for Evidence Established..
AI Use
In a trust accounting proceeding, the objectant's damages expert testified that he used Microsoft Copilot (described as an AI chatbot) to cross-check his damages calculations presented in a supplemental report.
Hallucination Details
The issue wasn't fabricated citations, but the reliability and verifiability of the AI's calculation process. The expert could not recall the specific prompts used, nor could he explain Copilot's underlying sources or methodology. He claimed using AI tools was generally accepted in his field but offered no proof.
Ruling/Sanction
The court had already found the expert's analysis unreliable on other grounds, but specifically addressed the AI use. The court attempted to replicate the expert's results using Copilot itself, obtaining different outputs and eliciting warnings from Copilot about the need for expert verification before court use. The court held, potentially as an issue of first impression in that court, that counsel has an affirmative duty to disclose the use of AI in generating evidence prior to its introduction, due to AI's rapid evolution and reliability issues. AI-generated evidence would be subject to a Frye hearing (standard for admissibility of scientific evidence in NY). The expert's AI-assisted calculations were deemed inadmissible.
Key Judicial Reasoning
The court emphasized the "garbage in, garbage out" principle, stressing the need for users to understand AI inputs and processes. It stated that the mere fact AI is used does not make its output admissible; reliability must be established. The lack of transparency regarding the AI's process was a key factor in finding the evidence unreliable.
Operational lesson
Disclose any AI-assisted evidence before offering it — undisclosed use triggers Frye hearings and automatic exclusion.
Record details
New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCC New York
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateOct 10, 2024
MS
AI toolMS Copilot
Party typeExpert
OutcomeAI-assisted Evidence Inadmissible; Affirmative Duty to Disclose AI Use for Evidence Established.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
MS Copilot is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
AI-assisted Evidence Inadmissible; Affirmative Duty to Disclose AI Use for Evidence Established.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Matter of Weber?
- Outcome: AI-assisted Evidence Inadmissible; Affirmative Duty to Disclose AI Use for Evidence Established.. AI UseIn a trust accounting proceeding, the objectant's damages expert testified that he used Microsoft Copilot (described as an AI chatbot) to cross-check his damages calculations presented in a supplemental report.Hallucination DetailsThe issue wasn't fabricated citations, but the reliability and verifiability of the AI's calculation process. The expert could not recall the specific prompts used, nor could he explain Copilot's underlying sources or methodology.…
- Why does Matter of Weber matter for legal AI risk?
- Disclose any AI-assisted evidence before offering it — undisclosed use triggers Frye hearings and automatic exclusion.
- What does the public record establish about Matter of Weber?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a legal-document or docket mirror. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Matter of Weber summary?
- The recorded source is law.justia.com. It is classified as docket or legal-document mirror; 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.