Shahid v. Esaam
CA Georgia · Jun 30, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Georgia Court of Appeals vacated a trial court order and remanded the case for a new hearing after finding that the appellee's counsel submitted filings containing multiple fictitious and misrepresented case citations. The court imposed a $2,500 monetary penalty against the attorney for the frivolous filings.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the trial court's order was void on its face due to reliance on non-existent cases. It determined that the appellee's counsel failed to meet the gatekeeping duty to ensure the accuracy of filings, noting that the high volume of bogus citations was consistent with the use of generative AI.
- Why it matters now
- Never submit a draft order written by counsel without verifying every case cited — the judge's credibility rides on yours.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Trial court's order relied on a fictitious case labeled 'Epps'; appellate court could not locate it and vacated the order. Outcome: Case remanded; monetary penalty. " After the trial court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce, Nimat Shahid (“Wife”) filed a petition to reopen the case and set aside the final judgment, arguing that service by publication was improper. The trial court denied the motion, using an order that relied upon non-existent case law.""We are troubled by the citation of bogus cases in the trial court's order. As the reviewing court, we make no findings of fact as to how this impropriety occurred, observing only that the order purports to have been prepared by Husband's attorney, Diana Lynch. We further note that Lynch had cited the two fictitious cases that made it into the trial court's order in Husband's response to the petition to reopen, and she cited additional fake cases both in that Response and in the Appellee's Brief filed in this Court. "
Never submit a draft order written by counsel without verifying every case cited — the judge's credibility rides on yours.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court noted the irregularities suggest the use of generative AI but did not identify a specific tool.
Appellate review of a trial court's denial of a petition to reopen a divorce case and set aside a final judgment.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
19 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Trial court's order relied on a fictitious case labeled 'Epps'; appellate court could not locate it and vacated the order.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Trial court's order relied on a fictitious case labeled 'Hodge'; appellate court could not locate it and vacated the order.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent case; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent 'Miller v. Miller' with a mismatched parallel cite; court found the reporter cite corresponds to an unrelated criminal case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent divorce case; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent case styled against the State; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent Ramos decision; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent McRae decision; court listed it as fictitious.
Show 11 additional discrepancies
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent Johnson decision to support attorney fees on appeal; court could not find it.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Husband's Response cited a non-existent case; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Husband's Response cited a non-existent Christie decision; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Husband's Response cited a non-existent Mobley decision; court listed it as fictitious.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellee's Brief misrepresented Blasingame as supporting service by publication; court said the case had nothing to do with service by publication.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellee's Brief misrepresented Wilson as governing deference to trial court factual findings; court noted Wilson says nothing about that standard of review.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellee's Brief misrepresented Brown v. Tomlinson as establishing deference in absence of a transcript; court said the case says nothing about that.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellee's Brief misrepresented Jones v. State as requiring affirmance without a transcript; court noted the case had a transcript and said nothing related to that proposition.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellee's Brief asserted OCGA § 9-15-14 authorizes attorney's fees on appeal; court explained longstanding law holds appellate fees are not recoverable under this statute.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Husband's Response cited a non-existent Robinson decision; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Husband's Response cited a non-existent Reynolds decision (distinct from the real 2015 Supreme Court case); court listed it as fictitious.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Shahid v. Esaam?
- The Georgia Court of Appeals vacated a trial court order and remanded the case for a new hearing after finding that the appellee's counsel submitted filings containing multiple fictitious and misrepresented case citations. The court imposed a $2,500 monetary penalty against the attorney for the frivolous filings.
- Why does Shahid v. Esaam matter for legal AI risk?
- Never submit a draft order written by counsel without verifying every case cited — the judge's credibility rides on yours.
- What does the public record establish about Shahid v. Esaam?
- 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 Shahid v. Esaam 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.