Raul Gonzales Davila v. Roblen
D. Connecticut · Feb 6, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Connecticut
- Record ID
- raul-gonzales-davila-v-roblen-2026-02-06
- Observed outcome
- David 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 monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Repeat AI-citation errors trigger mandatory CLE; build a firm AI-ethics training log before the court builds one for you.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Employment
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Sanctions order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on February 6, 2026.
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 court refers to the tool generally as an AI tool without naming it.
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.
- Train lawyers and staff to identify and verify generated legal content.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.