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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Zhang v. Chen
BC Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2024
CanadaEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfamilytrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Two case citations in the notice of application were invented by ChatGPT and could not be located; court accepted they were fabricated and Counsel admitted using ChatGPT. Outcome: Claimant awarded costs. "[29] Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court isan abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court.Unchecked, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice."
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Claimant awarded costs; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- BC Supreme Court equated fake AI citations with making a false statement to the court - costs attach and careers follow.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Two case citations in the notice of application were invented by ChatGPT and could not be located; court accepted they were fabricated and Counsel admitted using ChatGPT. Outcome: Claimant awarded costs. "[29] Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court isan abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court.Unchecked, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice."
Operational lesson
BC Supreme Court equated fake AI citations with making a false statement to the court - costs attach and careers follow.
Record details
CourtBC Supreme Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateFeb 20, 2024
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeClaimant awarded costs
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Claimant awarded costs
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Two case citations in the notice of application were invented by ChatGPT and could not be located; court accepted they were fabricated and Counsel admitted using ChatGPT.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Second invented citation in the notice of application was generated by ChatGPT and non-existent; disclosed by opposing counsel's research and admitted by Counsel
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Zhang v. Chen?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Two case citations in the notice of application were invented by ChatGPT and could not be located; court accepted they were fabricated and Counsel admitted using ChatGPT. Outcome: Claimant awarded costs. "[29] Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court isan abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court.Unchecked, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice."
- Why does Zhang v. Chen matter for legal AI risk?
- BC Supreme Court equated fake AI citations with making a false statement to the court - costs attach and careers follow.
- What does the public record establish about Zhang v. Chen?
- 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 Zhang v. Chen 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.