AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesRathi & Rathi
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Rathi & Rathi

Federal Circuit and Family Court · Dec 22, 2025

AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamilyNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified that a self-represented litigant used generative AI to fabricate a legal citation ('s 43(c)') and misrepresent another ('s 97(3)') in her submissions. The judge explicitly noted these errors as evidence of AI-generated content, which contributed to the court's determination that the appeal lacked merit and should be dismissed.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited 's 43(c) of the Act', but the court noted there is no s 43(c) of the Act and treated it as an AI-generated (fabricated) citation. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellant relied on 's 97(3)' in submissions; the court found that section did not support the appellant's contention and treated the reliance as evidence of generative AI use (misrepresentation/misapplication).
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Federal Circuit and Family Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In an appeal before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the court dismissed an appeal by a self-represented litigant regarding a prior costs order. During the proceedings, the appellant relied on submissions citing 's 97(3)' and 's 43(c)' of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court explicitly identified that 's 43(c)' does not exist and that 's 97(3)' did not support the appellant's contentions. The presiding judge concluded that the appellant's reliance on these non-existent or misapplied provisions demonstrated the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) to construct legal arguments. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as lacking merit, though the court declined to award further costs against the appellant due to her limited financial resources.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Federal Circuit and Family Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

CourtFederal Circuit and Family Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 22, 2025
GE
AI toolgenerative Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe appeal was dismissed, and no order for costs was made regarding the appeal itself.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The judge stated the appellant's reliance on specific sections demonstrated the use of generative Artificial Intelligence.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a costs order made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited 's 43(c) of the Act', but the court noted there is no s 43(c) of the Act and treated it as an AI-generated (fabricated) citation.
  2. Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellant relied on 's 97(3)' in submissions; the court found that section did not support the appellant's contention and treated the reliance as evidence of generative AI use (misrepresentation/misapplication).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Rathi & Rathi?
The court identified that a self-represented litigant used generative AI to fabricate a legal citation ('s 43(c)') and misrepresent another ('s 97(3)') in her submissions. The judge explicitly noted these errors as evidence of AI-generated content, which contributed to the court's determination that the appeal lacked merit and should be dismissed.
Why does Rathi & Rathi matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Federal Circuit and Family Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Rathi & Rathi?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Rathi & Rathi 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.

Tekla & TeklaFederal Circuit and Family Court · Dec 23, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsJenson & Lockridge (No 2)Federal Circuit and Family Court · Mar 19, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authorityFairrow v. EastenCA Arizona · Aug 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Whitehead v. MooreCA Missouri · Aug 4, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Teresa Jewel Whitten v. Kristopher Brian EverittCA Kentucky · Jul 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Ex parte A.I.F.-H. f/k/a A.I.F.CA Alabama · Jun 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)