Todd E. Glass v. Foley & Lardner LLP
W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 4, 2025 · Anita Marie Boor
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- W.D. Wisconsin
- Record ID
- todd-e-glass-v-foley-lardner-llp-2025-11-04
- Observed outcome
- The court issued a warning to the plaintiff regarding the use of AI-generated citations and granted limited jurisdictional discovery while denying the plaintiff's broader discovery requests.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant after discovering that his motion included multiple fabricated and misrepresented case citations, likely generated by AI. The court reminded the litigant of his duty under Rule 11 to verify all legal authority and cautioned that future reliance on non-existent citations could lead to sanctions.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not verify the citation; the case 'S.G. v. SafeSport, 74 F.4th 864, 870 (7th Cir. 2023)' does not appear to exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate this district decision; 'Cafasso v. Central Refrigerated Servs., Inc., 486 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1084 (W.D. Wis. 2007)' does not appear to exist in this district or under that reporter information. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation appears misrepresented: the cited case number 'Cressey v. Hamilton, No. 21-CV-2031 (D. Kan. 2021)' corresponds to a different matter in the District of Kansas.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Wisconsin, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tort
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court addressed a motion for jurisdictional discovery in a pending legal malpractice case, following a motion to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
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 explicitly referenced the plaintiff's potential use of generative artificial intelligence tools.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.