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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Mintvest Capital, LTD v. NYDIG Trust Company, et al.
D. Puerto Rico · Jun 23, 2025
PR / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case; 394 F. Supp. 2d 393 points to a different case (Díaz Rodríguez v. Torres Mártir, 394 F. Supp. 2d 389). Counsel admitted AI use. Outcome: Order to pay opposing counsel's fees. Plaintiff's counsel in the case of Mintvest Capital, LTD v. NYDIG Trust Company, et al., was found to have included numerous non-existent cases, false quotations, and misrepresented precedents in their filings. The errors were attributed to the use of the AI tool 'Claude' without proper verification. The court recommended sanctions under Rule 11, requiring the attorney to pay the defendants' attorney fees related to the faulty submissions.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Order to pay opposing counsel's fees; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Claude, ChatGPT, or any LLM still requires independent Westlaw verification — Rule 11 does not care which brand hallucinated.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case; 394 F. Supp. 2d 393 points to a different case (Díaz Rodríguez v. Torres Mártir, 394 F. Supp. 2d 389). Counsel admitted AI use. Outcome: Order to pay opposing counsel's fees. Plaintiff's counsel in the case of Mintvest Capital, LTD v. NYDIG Trust Company, et al., was found to have included numerous non-existent cases, false quotations, and misrepresented precedents in their filings. The errors were attributed to the use of the AI tool 'Claude' without proper verification. The court recommended sanctions under Rule 11, requiring the attorney to pay the defendants' attorney fees related to the faulty submissions. The court emphasized the need for attorneys to ensure the accuracy of citations, especially when using AI tools, to maintain professional standards.
Operational lesson
Claude, ChatGPT, or any LLM still requires independent Westlaw verification — Rule 11 does not care which brand hallucinated.
Record details
Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.
CourtD. Puerto Rico
Jurisdictionfederal
CircuitNot recorded
DateJun 23, 2025
CL
AI toolClaude
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeOrder to pay opposing counsel's fees
Known amount$1
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
Claude is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Order to pay opposing counsel's fees
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
11 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case; 394 F. Supp. 2d 393 points to a different case (Díaz Rodríguez v. Torres Mártir, 394 F. Supp. 2d 389). Counsel admitted AI use.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case; KLCE number and WL cite lead to unrelated cases. Counsel attributed to human/Google error.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted language not found in the cited case; court noted ConnectU addresses amendment as of right, not prejudice/delay factors.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Case cited for prejudice/delay amendment factors, but it concerns amendment as of right; misstates the case’s holding.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited for permitting amendment to add federal claims after finding no diversity, but the case addresses personal jurisdiction and was dismissed.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited to support permitting alternative pleadings, but the court did not address or endorse that concept.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted language does not exist in the cited decision (WL cite also misstated). Counsel admitted AI use.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quote attributed to Tambone is not in that case; originates from Texas Gulf Sulphur. Counsel admitted AI use.
Show 3 additional discrepancies
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case in Westlaw, Lexis, and CM/ECF. Counsel admitted AI use.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted proposition not in the cited case. Counsel believed it true generally but conceded mis-citation and AI use.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted language not found in the cited Second Circuit case. Counsel admitted AI use.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Mintvest Capital, LTD v. NYDIG Trust Company, et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case; 394 F. Supp. 2d 393 points to a different case (Díaz Rodríguez v. Torres Mártir, 394 F. Supp. 2d 389). Counsel admitted AI use. Outcome: Order to pay opposing counsel's fees. Plaintiff's counsel in the case of Mintvest Capital, LTD v. NYDIG Trust Company, et al., was found to have included numerous non-existent cases, false quotations, and misrepresented precedents in their filings. The errors were attributed to the use of the AI tool 'Claude' without proper verification. The court recommended sanctions under Rule 11, requiring the attorney to pay the defendants' attorney fees related to the faulty submissions.…
- Why does Mintvest Capital, LTD v. NYDIG Trust Company, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- Claude, ChatGPT, or any LLM still requires independent Westlaw verification — Rule 11 does not care which brand hallucinated.
- What does the public record establish about Mintvest Capital, LTD v. NYDIG Trust Company, et al.?
- 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 Mintvest Capital, LTD v. NYDIG Trust Company, et al. 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.