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.
Rasmussen v. Rasmussen
California · Aug 23, 2024
CA / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendant cited Ferreira v. Ferreira for joinder/equitable distribution; court found it is a child custody/forum non conveniens case and does not support the proposition. Outcome: Lawyer ordered to show cause why she should not be referred to the bar. While the Court initially organised show cause proceedings leading to potential sanctions, the case was eventually settled. Nevertheless, the Court stated that it "intends to report Ms. Rasmussen’s use of mis-cited and nonexistent cases in the demurrer to the State Bar", unless she objected to "this tentative ruling".
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Lawyer ordered to show cause why she should not be referred to the bar; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Settlement does not moot bar referrals — courts will still report fabricated citations after a case resolves.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendant cited Ferreira v. Ferreira for joinder/equitable distribution; court found it is a child custody/forum non conveniens case and does not support the proposition. Outcome: Lawyer ordered to show cause why she should not be referred to the bar. While the Court initially organised show cause proceedings leading to potential sanctions, the case was eventually settled. Nevertheless, the Court stated that it "intends to report Ms. Rasmussen’s use of mis-cited and nonexistent cases in the demurrer to the State Bar", unless she objected to "this tentative ruling".
Operational lesson
Settlement does not moot bar referrals — courts will still report fabricated citations after a case resolves.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCalifornia
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateAug 23, 2024
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeLawyer ordered to show cause why she should not be referred to the bar
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
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
Lawyer ordered to show cause why she should not be referred to the bar
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
8 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendant cited Ferreira v. Ferreira for joinder/equitable distribution; court found it is a child custody/forum non conveniens case and does not support the proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendant cited Erlich v. Superior Court as requiring good-faith negotiation before suit; court held Erlich concerns injunctions of collection actions and says nothing about such a requirement.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendant cited Albertson v. Raboff for the proposition that abuse of legal process indicates bad faith; court stated Albertson addresses lis pendens privilege and does not mention 'abuse' or 'bad faith.'
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited Dino v. Pelliccioni (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 163 to oppose partition by sale; court found no such case exists and the citation corresponds to Kramer v. State Board of Accountancy, unrelated to partition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited Harmon v. Harmon (2001) 24 Cal.4th 259 regarding trustee duties; court found no such case exists and the page falls within People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited Estate of Green (1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 495 regarding trustee duties; court found no such case exists and the citation maps to Staggs v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway (1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 492.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited Kerrigan v. O’Meara (1926) 71 Cal.App. 346 to attack pleading sufficiency; court found no such California case exists and the pinpoint corresponds to People v. Albrexstondare (1925) 71 Cal.App. 339; a Montana case with that caption is irrelevant.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendant cited Dieden v. Schmidt (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 645 to argue against partition by sale; court noted the case concerns judgment creditor rights and does not mention partition.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Rasmussen v. Rasmussen?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendant cited Ferreira v. Ferreira for joinder/equitable distribution; court found it is a child custody/forum non conveniens case and does not support the proposition. Outcome: Lawyer ordered to show cause why she should not be referred to the bar. While the Court initially organised show cause proceedings leading to potential sanctions, the case was eventually settled. Nevertheless, the Court stated that it "intends to report Ms. Rasmussen’s use of mis-cited and nonexistent cases in the demurrer to the State Bar", unless she objected to "this tentative ruling".
- Why does Rasmussen v. Rasmussen matter for legal AI risk?
- Settlement does not moot bar referrals — courts will still report fabricated citations after a case resolves.
- What does the public record establish about Rasmussen v. Rasmussen?
- 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 Rasmussen v. Rasmussen 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.