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
Withers v. City of Aberdeen
N.D. Mississippi · Jun 8, 2026
MS / federalEditorial impact: career endingfake citationsfabricated quotesbar referralcontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
The court identified multiple authorities and quoted propositions it could not verify in filings from both sides. The recorded outcome includes monetary sanctions, pro hac vice consequences, disqualification, and bar referrals.
- Why the court cared
- The discrepancies affected material presented as legal authority and persisted across filings, requiring the court to spend time verifying propositions counsel was responsible for checking.
- Why it matters now
- The matter shows that verification controls must apply to every side, every tool, and every filing. A tool label is less important than a documented source-checking process.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's memorandum [99] cited Miller v. City of Greenville, 243 So. 2d 81, 83 (Miss. 1971), which the Court could not locate and deemed hallucinatory. Outcome: Revoked pro hac vice; DQ resident attorneys from the case; Monetary Fine; Bar Referrals.
Operational lesson
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving First Drafts with Revoked pro hac vice; DQ resident attorneys from the case; Monetary Fine; Bar Referrals in N.D. Mississippi, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
MississippiSingle-state evidence scope
CourtN.D. Mississippi
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit5th Circuit
DateJun 8, 2026
FI
AI toolFirst Drafts
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeRevoked pro hac vice; DQ resident attorneys from the case; Monetary Fine; Bar Referrals
Known amount$8,000
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
The tracked source describes hallucinatory authorities and attributes use to First Drafts; inspect the linked order for the court's exact findings.
Procedural posture
Federal trial-court sanctions and attorney-qualification proceedings in the Northern District of Mississippi.
Correction behavior
The record reflects post-show-cause review and additional discrepancies; the precise response of each lawyer should be read from the underlying order.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's memorandum [99] cited Miller v. City of Greenville, 243 So. 2d 81, 83 (Miss. 1971), which the Court could not locate and deemed hallucinatory.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's memorandum [104] cited Riley v. City of Tupelo, No. 1:20-CV-186-GHD-DAS, 2023 WL 3568661, at 3 (N.D. Miss. May 18, 2023), which the Court could not verify.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's memorandum [104] cited Buckner v. Walker, No. 1:19-CV-146-SA-DAS, 2022 WL 2318582, at 4 (N.D. Miss. June 28, 2022), which the Court determined was fabricated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's memorandum [104] cited Harris v. City of Grenada, No. 3:18-CV-158-DMB-RP, 2021 WL 6062574, at 7 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 22, 2021), which the Court could not locate.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition [105] contained two citations the Court found nonexistent, including City of Grenada v. Harrelson, 84 So. 3d 35, 38 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition [105] cited Crittendon v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 99 So. 3d 751, 755 (Miss. 2012), which the Court identified as a hallucinatory citation.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Post-show-cause review disclosed a misrepresentation described as a 'fake quote' in one of Plaintiff's filings (court treated as a false quotation attributable to AI output).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Withers v. City of Aberdeen?
- The court identified multiple authorities and quoted propositions it could not verify in filings from both sides. The recorded outcome includes monetary sanctions, pro hac vice consequences, disqualification, and bar referrals.
- Why does Withers v. City of Aberdeen matter for legal AI risk?
- The matter shows that verification controls must apply to every side, every tool, and every filing. A tool label is less important than a documented source-checking process.
- What does the public record establish about Withers v. City of Aberdeen?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Withers v. City of Aberdeen 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.