Rasmussen v. Rasmussen
California · Aug 23, 2024
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- California
- Record ID
- rasmussen-v-rasmussen-2024-08-23
- Observed outcome
- The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant was ordered to appear for a show cause hearing regarding potential contempt, disqualification, and a mandatory report to the State Bar.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court ordered the defendant to appear in person to show cause why she should not be sanctioned, disqualified, or reported to the State Bar for citing multiple nonexistent and mischaracterized cases in a demurrer, which the court identified as a violation of the duty of candor.
The court reasoned that the defendant's citations were either nonexistent or fundamentally mischaracterized, noting that the errors mirrored those seen in cases involving large-language-model AI. The court concluded that filing such results without verification demonstrated a marked lack of integrity and violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct and Business and Professions Code section 6068(d).
Settlement does not moot bar referrals — courts will still report fabricated citations after a case resolves.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated: Case Law
- Misrepresented: Case Law
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Tentative ruling on a demurrer in a civil partition action, ordering the defendant to appear for a show cause hearing regarding potential sanctions.
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
Court inferred use of large-language-model AI.
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.
- 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.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.