AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 9, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesThorogood v. Merit Systems Protection Board
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Thorogood v. Merit Systems Protection Board

Fed. Cir. · Oct 8, 2026

/ federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativeappellateWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The brief cited a nonexistent case caption, “Camble v. Department of Defense,” with a reporter citation that pointed to a different case; the court noted this as a hallmark of generative AI use. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in Fed. Cir.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | The brief cited a nonexistent case caption, “Camble v. Department of Defense,” with a reporter citation that pointed to a different case; the court noted this as a hallmark of generative AI use. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in Fed. Cir.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtFed. Cir.
Jurisdictionfederal
CircuitFederal Circuit
DateOct 8, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
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

Warning

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 | The brief cited a nonexistent case caption, “Camble v. Department of Defense,” with a reporter citation that pointed to a different case; the court noted this as a hallmark of generative AI use.
  2. Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | The brief asserted that rescission had to be “voluntary” and “unconditional,” but supplied no legal support; the MSPB identified this language as possibly generated by AI, and the court cautioned against unsupported legal arguments.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Thorogood v. Merit Systems Protection Board?
Fabricated: Case Law | The brief cited a nonexistent case caption, “Camble v. Department of Defense,” with a reporter citation that pointed to a different case; the court noted this as a hallmark of generative AI use. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Thorogood v. Merit Systems Protection Board matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in Fed. Cir.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Thorogood v. Merit Systems Protection Board?
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 Thorogood v. Merit Systems Protection Board 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.

Jones v. Department of the ArmyFed. Cir. · May 13, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsEliott Williamson v. TransUnion LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc.11th Cir. CA · May 4, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedKelly Bartholomew v. Public Utility Commission of OregonCA Oregon · Apr 6, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedKeith Powell v. Employment Dep. & First Congregational Church of PortlandCA Oregon · Feb 11, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedSmith v. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Local BoardCA Arizona · Oct 6, 2026pro se + fake citationsKhan v. Howard County BAPCA Maryland · Jul 20, 2026pro se + fake citations