Pineda v. Campos
CA Arizona · Aug 7, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Arizona
- Record ID
- pineda-v-campos-2025-08-07
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the protective order, referred counsel to the State Bar of Arizona for ethical violations, and ordered counsel to pay the appellee's costs on appeal.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
Why this matter warrants attention
The court sanctioned counsel for submitting a brief containing fabricated citations, mischaracterized holdings, and non-existent quotations. The court referred counsel to the State Bar of Arizona for ethical review and ordered counsel to pay the appellee's costs on appeal as a sanction for violating appellate rules and the duty of candor.
The court reasoned that counsel's repeated misrepresentations of the record and reliance on non-existent or incorrect legal authorities violated the duty of candor and appellate rules, necessitating a referral to the State Bar and an award of costs to the prevailing party to discourage future misconduct.
A nominal $1 sanction plus bar referral still destroys a license — build mandatory citation-verification into the docketing workflow.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated_case_law
- Misrepresented_authority
- False_quotes
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a superior court order of protection; the court affirmed the order and issued sanctions against appellant's counsel.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court identified egregious citation errors consistent with AI hallucination.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.