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.
Mid Cent. Operating Eng'rs Health v. Hoosiervac
S.D. Indiana · May 28, 2025
IN / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsothertrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief at docket 39 contained citations to non-existent cases; the magistrate judge could not locate them and Rule 11 violation was admitted. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. (Earlier report and recommendation can be found here.)
- Why the court cared
- The judge stressed that "It is one thing to use AI to assist with initial research, and even nonlegal AI programs may provide a helpful 30,000-foot view. It is an entirely different thing, however, to rely on the output of a generative AI program without verifying the current treatment or validity—or, indeed, the very existence—of the case presented. Confirming a case is good law is a basic, routine matter and something to be expected from a practicing attorney. As noted in the case of an expert witness, an individual's "citation to fake, AI-generated sources . . . shatters his credibility." See Kohls v. Ellison, No. 0:24-cv-03754-LMP-DLM, Doc. 46 at *10 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025)."
- Why it matters now
- Shepardize every AI-surfaced case before filing; repeated unverified briefs stack sanctions across filings.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief at docket 39 contained citations to non-existent cases; the magistrate judge could not locate them and Rule 11 violation was admitted. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. (Earlier report and recommendation can be found here.)
AI Use
Counsel admitted at a show cause hearing that he used generative AI tools to draft multiple briefs and did not verify the citations provided by the AI, mistakenly trusting their apparent credibility without checking.
Hallucination Details
Three distinct fake cases across filings. Each was cited in a separate brief, with no attempt at Shepardizing or KeyCiting.
Ruling/Sanction
The Court recommended a $15,000 sanction ($5,000 per violation), with the matter referred to the Chief Judge for potential additional professional discipline. Counsel was also ordered to notify Hoosiervac LLC’s CEO of the misconduct and file a certification of compliance.Eventually, the court fined Counsel $6,000, stressing that this was sufficient.
Key Judicial Reasoning
The judge stressed that "It is one thing to use AI to assist with initial research, and even nonlegal AI programs may provide a helpful 30,000-foot view. It is an entirely different thing, however, to rely on the output of a generative AI program without verifying the current treatment or validity—or, indeed, the very existence—of the case presented. Confirming a case is good law is a basic, routine matter and something to be expected from a practicing attorney. As noted in the case of an expert witness, an individual's "citation to fake, AI-generated sources . . . shatters his credibility." See Kohls v. Ellison, No. 0:24-cv-03754-LMP-DLM, Doc. 46 at *10 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025)."
Operational lesson
Shepardize every AI-surfaced case before filing; repeated unverified briefs stack sanctions across filings.
Record details
IndianaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtS.D. Indiana
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit7th Circuit
DateMay 28, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary Sanction
Known amount$6,000
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
Monetary Sanction
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief at docket 39 contained citations to non-existent cases; the magistrate judge could not locate them and Rule 11 violation was admitted.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief at docket 52 contained citations to non-existent cases; the magistrate judge could not locate them and Rule 11 violation was admitted.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief at docket 65 contained citations to non-existent cases; the magistrate judge could not locate them and Rule 11 violation was admitted.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Mid Cent. Operating Eng'rs Health v. Hoosiervac?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief at docket 39 contained citations to non-existent cases; the magistrate judge could not locate them and Rule 11 violation was admitted. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. (Earlier report and recommendation can be found here.)
- Why does Mid Cent. Operating Eng'rs Health v. Hoosiervac matter for legal AI risk?
- Shepardize every AI-surfaced case before filing; repeated unverified briefs stack sanctions across filings.
- What does the public record establish about Mid Cent. Operating Eng'rs Health v. Hoosiervac?
- 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 Mid Cent. Operating Eng'rs Health v. Hoosiervac 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.