Which source supports this Washburn v. Houston 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.

HomeCasesWashburn v. Houston

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 90/100. 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

Washburn v. Houston

Arizona CA · Jan 2, 2026

AZ / state Editorial impact: high fabricated quotes misrepresented authority bar referral family Bar Referral

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Arizona Court of Appeals referred the appellant's counsel to the State Bar of Arizona for disciplinary review after identifying multiple instances of fabricated case law, hallucinated judicial quotations, and false citations to evidentiary transcripts in the opening brief.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief cites Buencamino, Woyton, Reid, Vincent, and Thompson as addressing specific relocation factors, but none of those cases discuss the claimed factors. || False Quotes: Case Law | Brief attributes quotations to Owen v. Blackhawk that do not appear in that opinion. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Brief purports to quote the amended decree and the May 2023 and November 2024 evidentiary hearing transcripts, but the quoted material does not appear in those records.
Why it matters now: Fabricating transcript quotes — not just cases — guarantees a bar referral; assign a second reviewer to spot-check every record citation.

Why this matter is tracked

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief cites Buencamino, Woyton, Reid, Vincent, and Thompson as addressing specific relocation factors, but none of those cases discuss the claimed factors. Outcome: Bar referral. Appellant Father's counsel submitted an opening brief containing misleading/inaccurate legal citations, mischaracterized case law, fabricated quotations attributed to Owen v. Blackhawk, and false quotations purportedly from the amended decree and hearing transcripts. The appellate court identified these errors, concluded they supported a potential ethics referral, and forwarded the decision to the State Bar for review.

Operational lesson

Fabricating transcript quotes — not just cases — guarantees a bar referral; assign a second reviewer to spot-check every record citation.

Record details

ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope

Explore AZOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtArizona CA

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJan 2, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeThe court affirmed the lower court's order and referred the appellant's counsel to the State Bar of Arizona for investigation into potential violations of professional conduct rules.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

The source does not name a tool, but the nature of the errors implies AI usage.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a superior court's order regarding child custody and relocation, resulting in an affirmation of the lower court's decision and a referral of counsel to the State Bar.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief cites Buencamino, Woyton, Reid, Vincent, and Thompson as addressing specific relocation factors, but none of those cases discuss the claimed factors.
False Quotes: Case Law | Brief attributes quotations to Owen v. Blackhawk that do not appear in that opinion.
False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Brief purports to quote the amended decree and the May 2023 and November 2024 evidentiary hearing transcripts, but the quoted material does not appear in those records.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Washburn v. Houston?: The Arizona Court of Appeals referred the appellant's counsel to the State Bar of Arizona for disciplinary review after identifying multiple instances of fabricated case law, hallucinated judicial quotations, and false citations to evidentiary transcripts in the opening brief.
Why does Washburn v. Houston matter for legal AI risk?: Fabricating transcript quotes — not just cases — guarantees a bar referral; assign a second reviewer to spot-check every record citation.
What does the public record establish about Washburn v. Houston?: 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 Washburn v. Houston 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.

Jodell Dodge v. FirstService Residential Arizona LLCD. Arizona · Dec 8, 2025same jurisdiction · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Prososki v. ReganSC Nebraska · Mar 20, 2026fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority In re termination of parental rights (HK)CA Arizona · Feb 25, 2026same jurisdiction · fabricated quotes + bar referral In re the Matter of: Abius Rosas CarreonCA Arizona · Feb 4, 2026same jurisdiction · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Offen Petroleum v. L&J ExpressD. Arizona · Feb 4, 2026same jurisdiction · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security AdministrationD. Arizona · Jan 13, 2026same jurisdiction · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open Arizona CA profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology