AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesVirgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al.

S.D. Indiana · Feb 12, 2026

IN / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationsmisrepresented authoritybar referralcontractMonetaryBar Referral
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court recommended a $10,000 monetary sanction and a referral to the Chief Judge for disciplinary review after counsel submitted multiple briefs containing fabricated and misrepresented case law. The court determined that the attorney failed to perform the fundamental duty of verifying the validity of cited authorities before filing.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Myers v. Passport Health, 2013 WL 5819270 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 29, 2013); court found this citation does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Schuh v. American Express Bank, FSB, 2019 WL 132741 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2019); court found the citation does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Same non-existent Myers citation also appeared in a separate filing (Docket 240); court found it does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Merriman v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2021 WL 5937732 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2021); court found this citation does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Treece v. Perrillo, No. 1:17-cv-00406, 2018 WL 3815004 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 10, 2018); court found the opinion does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Armstrong v. Kroger Co., 621 F.2d 934 (8th Cir. 1980); court found this citation to be non-existent as cited. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Hinkle v. CBE Grp., 827 F.3d 129 (5th Cir. 2016); court determined the cited opinion does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Wigington v. Hill-Soberg Co., 396 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1968); court found the citation non-existent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Jenkins v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 736 F. Supp. 2d 962 (E.D. Va. 2010); court found the citation does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Rodriguez v. Pasquarella, 2019 WL 2411480 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 2019); court found this citation non-existent. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2009); court found the case exists but was misrepresented for the proposition cited. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Wright v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 805 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2015); court found the citation was misrepresented and did not support the asserted point. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited In re TJX Cos. Retail Sec. Breach Litig., 524 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D. Mass. 2007); court concluded the citation was misrepresented as to the issue relied upon. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited King v. Gen. Info. Servs., Inc., 903 F. Supp. 2d 303 (E.D. Pa. 2012); court found the citation was misrepresented for the proposition cited. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Myers v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 750 F.3d 910, 915-17 (11th Cir. 2014); court found this specific citation does not exist.
Why it matters now
Ten-plus fabricated cites across multiple filings triggers bar referral; one missed verification audit can end careers.

Why this matter is tracked

In a civil action, the court identified multiple fabricated and misrepresented case citations in filings submitted by counsel. The attorney admitted to failing to verify the existence and accuracy of the cited authorities, attributing the errors to poor research practices and a high workload rather than the direct use of generative AI. The Magistrate Judge found that the attorney violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 3.1, and 3.3. Consequently, the Magistrate recommended a $10,000 monetary sanction and a referral to the Chief Judge for further disciplinary consideration regarding the attorney's professional conduct.

Operational lesson

Ten-plus fabricated cites across multiple filings triggers bar referral; one missed verification audit can end careers.

Record details

IndianaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore INOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtS.D. Indiana
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit7th Circuit
DateFeb 12, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe Magistrate Judge recommended a $10,000 monetary sanction and a referral to the Chief Judge for potential professional discipline.
Known amount$1
Professional sanctionReferral to the Chief Judge for consideration of further disciplinary action under Local Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 2(a).
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Report and Recommendation on Rule 11 sanctions issued by the Magistrate Judge on February 12, 2026.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

15 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Myers v. Passport Health, 2013 WL 5819270 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 29, 2013); court found this citation does not exist.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Schuh v. American Express Bank, FSB, 2019 WL 132741 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2019); court found the citation does not exist.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Same non-existent Myers citation also appeared in a separate filing (Docket 240); court found it does not exist.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Merriman v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2021 WL 5937732 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2021); court found this citation does not exist.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Treece v. Perrillo, No. 1:17-cv-00406, 2018 WL 3815004 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 10, 2018); court found the opinion does not exist.
  6. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Armstrong v. Kroger Co., 621 F.2d 934 (8th Cir. 1980); court found this citation to be non-existent as cited.
  7. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Hinkle v. CBE Grp., 827 F.3d 129 (5th Cir. 2016); court determined the cited opinion does not exist.
  8. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Wigington v. Hill-Soberg Co., 396 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1968); court found the citation non-existent.
Show 7 additional discrepancies
  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Jenkins v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 736 F. Supp. 2d 962 (E.D. Va. 2010); court found the citation does not exist.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Rodriguez v. Pasquarella, 2019 WL 2411480 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 2019); court found this citation non-existent.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2009); court found the case exists but was misrepresented for the proposition cited.
  4. Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Wright v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 805 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2015); court found the citation was misrepresented and did not support the asserted point.
  5. Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited In re TJX Cos. Retail Sec. Breach Litig., 524 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D. Mass. 2007); court concluded the citation was misrepresented as to the issue relied upon.
  6. Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited King v. Gen. Info. Servs., Inc., 903 F. Supp. 2d 303 (E.D. Pa. 2012); court found the citation was misrepresented for the proposition cited.
  7. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Myers v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 750 F.3d 910, 915-17 (11th Cir. 2014); court found this specific citation does not exist.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al.?
The court recommended a $10,000 monetary sanction and a referral to the Chief Judge for disciplinary review after counsel submitted multiple briefs containing fabricated and misrepresented case law. The court determined that the attorney failed to perform the fundamental duty of verifying the validity of cited authorities before filing.
Why does Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
Ten-plus fabricated cites across multiple filings triggers bar referral; one missed verification audit can end careers.
What does the public record establish about Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al.?
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.
Which source supports this Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al. 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.

Kamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance CorporationS.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityTsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLCS.D. Indiana · Sep 17, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityElbert Coleman, III; Elbert Coleman, IV v. Nexo Capital Inc.S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2026same court · fake citations + contractJana James v. National Board of Osteopathic Examiners, Inc.S.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityMichael Platt v. Volunteers of America Ohio & IndianaS.D. Indiana · Mar 10, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityCynthia White v. Walmart, Inc.S.D. Indiana · Apr 14, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority