Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Washburn v. Houston
Arizona CA · Jan 2, 2026
AZ / stateEditorial impact: highfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritybar referralfamily
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
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.
- 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
CourtArizona CA
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJan 2, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeBar referral
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
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
Bar referral
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?
- 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.
- 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.