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
HomeCasesSenat für Familiensachen, 17 WF 144/25
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 76/100. 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

Senat für Familiensachen, 17 WF 144/25

KG Berlin · Nov 20, 2025

GermanyEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfamilytrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The KG Berlin court identified that counsel used AI to draft legal submissions containing fabricated case law citations. The court admonished the attorney for failing to verify these citations, noting that such oversight violates the professional duties of a lawyer as an organ of the administration of justice under § 43 BRAO.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited "BGH, Beschl. v. 14.11.2007 – XII ZB 183/07, FamRZ 2008, 137"; the senate's search found no such decision and that FamRZ 2008, 137 contains unrelated BGH decisions (e.g., 31.10.2017 XII ZR 112/05). || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited "OLG Brandenburg, Beschl. v. 28.07.2016 – 13 UF 103/16" which the senate could not find in legal databases or on the internet and appears non-existent.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in KG Berlin, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In a family law appeal before the KG Berlin, the court rejected the mother's immediate complaint regarding the denial of legal aid. During the proceedings, the court identified that the mother's counsel submitted briefs containing fabricated case law citations, specifically a non-existent BGH decision (XII ZB 183/07) and an unverified OLG Brandenburg decision (13 UF 103/16). The court explicitly noted that these citations were the result of an AI tool used to draft the submissions without verification by counsel. The court admonished the attorney for failing to meet professional obligations under § 43 BRAO to verify the accuracy of legal research and citations before filing documents with the court.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in KG Berlin, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

CourtKG Berlin
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateNov 20, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe immediate complaint was rejected as unfounded, and counsel was formally admonished for submitting unverified AI-generated citations.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionFormal judicial admonishment regarding professional duties under § 43 BRAO.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The court identified the use of AI in drafting.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a lower court's denial of legal aid in a family law matter.

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. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited "BGH, Beschl. v. 14.11.2007 – XII ZB 183/07, FamRZ 2008, 137"; the senate's search found no such decision and that FamRZ 2008, 137 contains unrelated BGH decisions (e.g., 31.10.2017 XII ZR 112/05).
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited "OLG Brandenburg, Beschl. v. 28.07.2016 – 13 UF 103/16" which the senate could not find in legal databases or on the internet and appears non-existent.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Senat für Familiensachen, 17 WF 144/25?
The KG Berlin court identified that counsel used AI to draft legal submissions containing fabricated case law citations. The court admonished the attorney for failing to verify these citations, noting that such oversight violates the professional duties of a lawyer as an organ of the administration of justice under § 43 BRAO.
Why does Senat für Familiensachen, 17 WF 144/25 matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in KG Berlin, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Senat für Familiensachen, 17 WF 144/25?
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 Senat für Familiensachen, 17 WF 144/25 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.

3 ORbs 164/25KG Berlin · Aug 25, 2025same court · fake citations + trialWoodley v. GottschallSC Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2026fake citations + family · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Zoryana Kaspryak v. Mykhaylo StadarskyySC Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2026fake citations + family · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Mohamed Ali v. Saeed OsmanNorth Dakota SC · Aug 6, 2026fake citations + family · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Morgan v. JonesOhio · Jun 26, 2026fake citations + family · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Jaclyn Cocco v. Rosario Palmieri, Jr.SC Pennsylvania · May 29, 2026fake citations + family · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)