Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1VWTJVPGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Versant Funding v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enterprises

S.D. Florida · May 20, 2025

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
S.D. Florida
Record ID
versant-funding-v-teras-breakbulk-ocean-navigation-enterprises-2025-05-20
Observed outcome
The Court ordered the attorneys to pay the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs incurred in addressing the hallucination, imposed a $1,000 fine on pro hac vice counsel and a $500 fine on local counsel, and mandated completion of CLE on AI ethics.
Known monetary consequence
$1,500
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The Court sanctioned two attorneys for submitting a hallucinated case citation generated by AI. The sanctions included joint and several liability for the opposing party's fees and costs, a $1,500 total fine payable to the Court, and a mandatory CLE requirement on AI ethics.

Why the decision-maker cared

The Court distinguished this case from more egregious incidents (O’Brien v. Flick, Thomas v. Pangburn) because the attorneys admitted their error and did not lie or attempt to cover it up. However, the delay in correction and failure to check the citation in the first place were serious enough to warrant monetary penalties and educational obligations

Why it matters now

Local counsel who signs without checking is jointly liable; require both drafting and signing counsel to verify citations.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Fake Citations
  • Contract
  • Trial
  • Monetary
AI attribution
Admitted
Recorded tool
Unspecified AI tool
Known monetary consequence
$1,500
Procedural posture
Sua sponte order imposing sanctions following a motion hearing regarding a fabricated case citation.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

Counsel admitted using an unspecified AI 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).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
  3. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.