Robert Lafayette v. Alex Abrami et al
Vermont SC · Dec 18, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- Vermont SC
- Record ID
- robert-lafayette-v-alex-abrami-et-al-2025-12-18
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the defendants' motion for attorney's fees in the amount of $7,360.96 and imposed a pre-filing injunction on the plaintiff.
- Known monetary consequence
- $7,361
Why this matter warrants attention
The Vermont Superior Court sanctioned a pro se litigant for filing fabricated case law and quotations. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $7,360.96 in attorney's fees and imposed a pre-filing injunction, requiring the plaintiff to obtain judicial approval before filing any new documents in the Lamoille Civil Division.
The court found that the plaintiff violated Rule 11(b)(2) by repeatedly submitting filings with non-existent case citations and fabricated quotations. The court determined that the plaintiff's conduct was not merely a result of his reliance on AI tools due to a disability, but rather demonstrated bad faith and an intent to harass. The court concluded that a pre-filing injunction was the only adequate sanction to protect the court and other parties, as the plaintiff had ignored previous warnings and was unlikely to pay monetary fines.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Vermont SC, with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order; Pre-Filing Injunction.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- unspecified artificial intelligence software
- Known monetary consequence
- $7,361
- Procedural posture
- The court issued an order on attorney's fees and sanctions following a motion to strike under Vermont's anti-SLAPP statute and a show-cause hearing regarding the plaintiff's litigation conduct.
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
Plaintiff claimed he relied on artificial intelligence software to prepare filings.
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.
- Escalate and correct a suspect filing promptly, with a documented response.