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
HomeCasesRaul Gonzales Davila v. Roblen
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 90/100. 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

Raul Gonzales Davila v. Roblen

D. Connecticut · Feb 6, 2026

CT / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesemploymenttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court ordered attorney David Stich to complete three hours of continuing legal education on the responsible use of AI in legal practice and to publish his findings on AI and legal practice to the Connecticut legal community, following his submission of a brief containing hallucinated AI-generated quotes.

Why the court cared
False Quotes: Case Law | Brief attributed a quotation to Pineda v. Frisolino that does not appear in that opinion; Court found the quoted language absent and that counsel relied on the false quote to support FLSA individual coverage. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted prior memorandum contained hallucinated AI-generated citations to non-existent cases in a related matter, which led Judge Hall to order show cause.
Why it matters now
Repeat AI-citation errors trigger mandatory CLE; build a firm AI-ethics training log before the court builds one for you.

Why this matter is tracked

Counsel David Stich filed a memorandum of law in the District of Connecticut containing multiple AI-generated quotes from legal authorities that did not exist in the cited opinions. The court found that Stich failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the viability of the brief, relying on hallucinated language to support FLSA individual coverage arguments. This conduct followed a prior sanction against Stich in a related matter for similar AI-generated citations. While the court declined to impose formal sanctions on co-counsel Stephanie Stich for a lack of candor, it ordered David Stich to complete three hours of continuing legal education on responsible AI use and to disseminate his findings to the Connecticut legal community in written form.

Operational lesson

Repeat AI-citation errors trigger mandatory CLE; build a firm AI-ethics training log before the court builds one for you.

Record details

ConnecticutSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CTOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Connecticut
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateFeb 6, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeDavid Stich was ordered to complete three hours of CLE on responsible AI use and to publish written findings on AI in legal practice; no sanctions were imposed on Stephanie Stich.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionMandatory continuing legal education and a requirement to publish written findings on AI ethics.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The court refers to the tool generally as an AI tool without naming it.

Procedural posture

Sanctions order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on February 6, 2026.

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. False Quotes: Case Law | Brief attributed a quotation to Pineda v. Frisolino that does not appear in that opinion; Court found the quoted language absent and that counsel relied on the false quote to support FLSA individual coverage.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted prior memorandum contained hallucinated AI-generated citations to non-existent cases in a related matter, which led Judge Hall to order show cause.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Raul Gonzales Davila v. Roblen?
The court ordered attorney David Stich to complete three hours of continuing legal education on the responsible use of AI in legal practice and to publish his findings on AI and legal practice to the Connecticut legal community, following his submission of a brief containing hallucinated AI-generated quotes.
Why does Raul Gonzales Davila v. Roblen matter for legal AI risk?
Repeat AI-citation errors trigger mandatory CLE; build a firm AI-ethics training log before the court builds one for you.
What does the public record establish about Raul Gonzales Davila v. Roblen?
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 Raul Gonzales Davila v. Roblen 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.

Jesse Andre v. Warden, FCI DanburyD. Connecticut · Nov 25, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesCojom v. RoblenD. Connecticut · Nov 17, 2025same court · fake citations + employmentUlish Kerry Terrace Booker, III v. U.S. Bank National AssociationD. Connecticut · Aug 5, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesBraica v. Frankowski (Anthony Braica v. Tom Frankowski)D. Connecticut · Dec 15, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesBarteca Holdings v. TacobarnD. Connecticut · Aug 4, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + trialJacobs v. Payward, Inc.D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2026same court · fake citations + trial