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.
Pineda v. Campos
CA Arizona · Aug 7, 2025
AZ / stateEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityfamily
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'Cardoso v. Soldo' with reporter information that actually corresponds to a different opinion (Lund v. Myers) and the cited authority did not support counsel's proposition. Outcome: Referral to State bar; Ex officio adverse costs order. The appellate court found Husband's counsel made multiple misleading or incorrect citations and attributed quotations to cases that do not contain them.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Referral to State bar; Ex officio adverse costs order; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- A nominal $1 sanction plus bar referral still destroys a license — build mandatory citation-verification into the docketing workflow.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'Cardoso v. Soldo' with reporter information that actually corresponds to a different opinion (Lund v. Myers) and the cited authority did not support counsel's proposition. Outcome: Referral to State bar; Ex officio adverse costs order. The appellate court found Husband's counsel made multiple misleading or incorrect citations and attributed quotations to cases that do not contain them. The court noted some citations used incorrect reporters that pointed to unrelated decisions, concluded the cited authorities did not support counsel's propositions (and in some instances contradicted them), forwarded the decision to the State Bar for possible ethical violations, and awarded costs to the prevailing party.
Operational lesson
A nominal $1 sanction plus bar referral still destroys a license — build mandatory citation-verification into the docketing workflow.
Record details
ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Arizona
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateAug 7, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeReferral to State bar; Ex officio adverse costs order
Known amount$1
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Referral to State bar; Ex officio adverse costs order
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'Cardoso v. Soldo' with reporter information that actually corresponds to a different opinion (Lund v. Myers) and the cited authority did not support counsel's proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Arjona v. Arjona to support a proposition about orders of protection, but the Arjona memorandum decision did not involve domestic violence or an order of protection and was vacated.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Leon v. Plaza with incorrect reporter information and mischaracterized the case's holdings regarding naming specific incidents and statutory offenses.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel attributed quotations to Savord v. Morton that do not appear in that opinion; the court found the quoted language absent from Savord.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Pineda v. Campos?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'Cardoso v. Soldo' with reporter information that actually corresponds to a different opinion (Lund v. Myers) and the cited authority did not support counsel's proposition. Outcome: Referral to State bar; Ex officio adverse costs order. The appellate court found Husband's counsel made multiple misleading or incorrect citations and attributed quotations to cases that do not contain them.…
- Why does Pineda v. Campos matter for legal AI risk?
- A nominal $1 sanction plus bar referral still destroys a license — build mandatory citation-verification into the docketing workflow.
- What does the public record establish about Pineda v. Campos?
- 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 Pineda v. Campos 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.