HomeCasesRe an Office-Holder; Cork v Smith

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Re an Office-Holder; Cork v Smith

Chancery · May 22, 2026

GBEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityadministrative

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Legal Norm | The letters to the court quoted a non-existent statutory text presented as IR 12.37(5) (the 'Purported Text'); court found this text was invented by the firm's AI and placed in the letter without verification. Outcome: Public admonishment; SRA Referral.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Public admonishment; SRA Referral; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Public admonishment; SRA Referral in Chancery, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Public admonishment; SRA Referral in Chancery, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtChancery

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateMay 22, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomePublic admonishment; SRA Referral

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Public admonishment; SRA Referral

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Legal Norm | The letters to the court quoted a non-existent statutory text presented as IR 12.37(5) (the 'Purported Text'); court found this text was invented by the firm's AI and placed in the letter without verification.
Fabricated: Legal Norm | AI asserted Rule 12.39 expressly provides for block transfer orders and power to make consequential directions; court found this attribution was false.
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | AI produced an incorrect account of section 173 of the Insolvency Act 1986, misstating which subsections apply and the circumstances and effects of release for liquidators.
Fabricated: Legal Norm | AI claimed the wording had been drawn from IR 12.37(8) (another fabricated attribution) when responding to the court's challenge; court found no such text exists in that paragraph.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Re an Office-Holder; Cork v Smith?: Fabricated: Legal Norm | The letters to the court quoted a non-existent statutory text presented as IR 12.37(5) (the 'Purported Text'); court found this text was invented by the firm's AI and placed in the letter without verification. Outcome: Public admonishment; SRA Referral.
Why does Re an Office-Holder; Cork v Smith matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Public admonishment; SRA Referral in Chancery, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Re an Office-Holder; Cork v Smith?: 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.
Which source supports this Re an Office-Holder; Cork v Smith 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.

Farooq v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police ForceSupreme Court (NSW) · Dec 9, 2025fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified Matter of MatosSC New York · Nov 13, 2025fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified Damilola Obembe v. Droisys, Inc.OCAHO · Jul 29, 2025fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified Ayinde v. Haringey & Al-Haroun v. QNBHigh Court · Jun 6, 2025fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified Plonit v. Sharia Court of AppealsHigh Court · Feb 23, 2025fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified 14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Legal Norm | AI asserted Rule 12.39 expressly provides for block transfer orders and power to make consequential directions; court found this attribution was false.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | AI produced an incorrect account of section 173 of the Insolvency Act 1986, misstating which subsections apply and the circumstances and effects of release for liquidators.

Fabricated: Legal Norm | AI claimed the wording had been drawn from IR 12.37(8) (another fabricated attribution) when responding to the court's challenge; court found no such text exists in that paragraph.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Re an Office-Holder; Cork v Smith?

Why does Re an Office-Holder; Cork v Smith matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Re an Office-Holder; Cork v Smith?

Which source supports this Re an Office-Holder; Cork v Smith 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.