Rathi & Rathi
Federal Circuit and Family Court · Dec 22, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Federal Circuit and Family Court
- Record ID
- rathi-rathi-2025-12-22
- Observed outcome
- The appeal was dismissed, and no order for costs was made regarding the appeal itself.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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).
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Federal Circuit and Family Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- Appellate
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a costs order made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).
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 judge stated the appellant's reliance on specific sections demonstrated the use of generative Artificial Intelligence.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.