Shahid v. Esaam
CA Georgia · Jun 30, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Georgia
- Record ID
- shahid-v-esaam-2025-06-30
- Observed outcome
- The appellate court vacated the trial court's order, remanded the case for a new hearing, and imposed a $2,500 monetary penalty against the appellee's attorney.
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,500
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Never submit a draft order written by counsel without verifying every case cited — the judge's credibility rides on yours.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- Appellate
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,500
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a trial court's denial of a petition to reopen a divorce case and set aside a final judgment.
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
The court noted the irregularities suggest the use of generative AI but did not identify a specific tool.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.