Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Schlichter v. Kennedy
CA California · Nov 17, 2025
CA / stateEditorial impact: highfake citationsbar referralappellate
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent 'Estate of Layton (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d 599' for a proposition about life tenants; court found no such reporter/page case and the actual Estate of Layton cases do not support the proposition. Outcome: Monetary sanction, bar referral.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent 'Estate of Layton (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d 599' for a proposition about life tenants; court found no such reporter/page case and the actual Estate of Layton cases do not support the proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent 'Riddle v. Harmon (1865) 5 Cal. 491, 494' as recognizing a life-estate vs cash-assets distinction; court found that citation does not exist and the real Riddle v. Harmon (1980) concerns joint tenancy termination. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent 'Estate of Kraus (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 429' for the proposition that assets not in pleadings fall outside probate court jurisdiction; court found the cited reporter/page does not exist and the actual Estate of Kraus (2010) does not support that proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent 'Estate of Hermon (1973) 16 Cal.App.3d 421' to claim courts construe wills in light of equitable considerations; court found the cited reporter/page does not exist and the actual Estate of Hermon (1995) does not contain 'equitable' analysis.
- Why it matters now
- A small monetary sanction plus bar referral is the new baseline — the dollar amount is irrelevant, the referral is the career risk.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent 'Estate of Layton (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d 599' for a proposition about life tenants; court found no such reporter/page case and the actual Estate of Layton cases do not support the proposition. Outcome: Monetary sanction, bar referral.
Operational lesson
A small monetary sanction plus bar referral is the new baseline — the dollar amount is irrelevant, the referral is the career risk.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA California
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateNov 17, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary sanction, bar referral
Known amount$1,750
Professional sanctionYes
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
Monetary sanction, bar 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: Case Law | Cited nonexistent 'Estate of Layton (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d 599' for a proposition about life tenants; court found no such reporter/page case and the actual Estate of Layton cases do not support the proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent 'Riddle v. Harmon (1865) 5 Cal. 491, 494' as recognizing a life-estate vs cash-assets distinction; court found that citation does not exist and the real Riddle v. Harmon (1980) concerns joint tenancy termination.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent 'Estate of Kraus (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 429' for the proposition that assets not in pleadings fall outside probate court jurisdiction; court found the cited reporter/page does not exist and the actual Estate of Kraus (2010) does not support that proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent 'Estate of Hermon (1973) 16 Cal.App.3d 421' to claim courts construe wills in light of equitable considerations; court found the cited reporter/page does not exist and the actual Estate of Hermon (1995) does not contain 'equitable' analysis.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Schlichter v. Kennedy?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent 'Estate of Layton (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d 599' for a proposition about life tenants; court found no such reporter/page case and the actual Estate of Layton cases do not support the proposition. Outcome: Monetary sanction, bar referral.
- Why does Schlichter v. Kennedy matter for legal AI risk?
- A small monetary sanction plus bar referral is the new baseline — the dollar amount is irrelevant, the referral is the career risk.
- What does the public record establish about Schlichter v. Kennedy?
- 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 Schlichter v. Kennedy 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.