United States v. Thomas Czartorski, et al.
W.D. Kentucky · Nov 10, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- W.D. Kentucky
- Record ID
- united-states-v-thomas-czartorski-et-al-2025-11-10
- Observed outcome
- The court ordered a hearing for Wright's counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for submitting false and non-existent legal authority.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued an order to show cause requiring Wright's counsel to explain why they should not be sanctioned for submitting filings containing fictitious judicial opinions and misrepresented case law, which the court attributed to the use of generative AI.
Fabricated: Case Law | Wright's brief cites a purported opinion 'United States v. Hang Le-Thy Tran, No. 3:07-CR-53, 2008 WL 2699394 (E.D. Ky. July 3, 2008)' which the court identified as non-existent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cites 'United States v. Cope, 312 F. Supp. 2d 791 (E.D. Ky. 2004)' which the court treated as a fictitious opinion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Wright cites 'United States v. Abbott, 2023 WL 4106534 (E.D. Ky. June 27, 2023)'; the court found the citation non-existent and noted internal inconsistencies. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The brief quotes and characterizes United States v. Chavis, 296 F.3d 450 (6th Cir. 2002) in a manner the court found to misrepresent that Sixth Circuit holding. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Wright cites United States v. Tran, 433 F.3d 472, 478 (6th Cir. 2006) but the court found the holding as presented was misstated.
Never feed cases into ChatGPT for 'favorable arguments' — fabrications flow back as quotes and holdings you cannot defend.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Misrepresented_legal_authority
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Criminal
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on November 10, 2025, addressing motions to sever and ordering a show cause hearing regarding unethical citation practices.
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 attributed the errors to the use of generative AI.
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.
- Use only approved research and drafting tools for legal work.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.
- Train lawyers and staff to identify and verify generated legal content.