Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 28, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Source-linked corpus view

Bar Referral

Bar Referral appears in 178 of 2,223 public corpus records (8%). This page describes the recorded dataset, not an incidence rate, prevalence of AI use, or a prediction of future outcomes.

Matched records178
Corpus denominator2,223
Source linked99.4%
Latest trackedOct 7, 2026
Evidence-based answer

What issues appear in matters recording Bar Referral?

Taxonomy definition: A referral, notification, or reporting requirement involving a bar or disciplinary authority is recorded.

AI Vortex currently links 178 source-linked public matters that record Bar Referral. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (162), Fabricated or altered quotations (87) and Misrepresented authority (85). Recorded responses and outcomes include Bar or professional referral (178), Professional discipline (108) and Monetary sanction (107). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the consequence.

Every count below links to the exact matching records. The linked source, subsequent docket history, and local procedural context remain controlling.

Leading issue signalFabricated authorities162 records
Leading recorded responseBar or professional referral178 records
Known USD amounts$610,709.9068 known · 39 unquantified
Recorded date rangeJan 30, 2024through Oct 7, 2026
Observed issue mix

What problems appear in these records?

Issue categories can overlap within a single matter.

Recorded consequences

How did courts or authorities respond?

Response categories can overlap and do not imply that every matter ended in a sanction.

Participant context

Who appears in these matters?

Matter context

Which practice areas are represented?

Attribution status

How is AI involvement recorded?

Unspecified attribution is not evidence that a particular vendor was used.

Corpus evolution

When were these matters recorded?

Public records in this view

Showing the most recent 24 of 178 matching records.

Washington v. JusticeCA Florida (2d) · FL · AI (implied, unspecified)
Oct 7, 2026
P. M. M. c/ G. A., F. M. d. S.H. s/ cobro ordinario de sumas de dineroCA Morón · Argentina · No tool named in source
Oct 1, 2026
Cervantes v. BiancoSC California · CA · Unidentified
Sep 24, 2026
Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust CompanyD.C. Court of Appeals · US · Google AI
Sep 3, 2026
Morgan Cole v. Hobby Town Unlimited, Inc.C.D. Illinois · IL · No tool named in source
Sep 2, 2026
Thomas Raynard James v. Detective Kevin Conley, et al.S.D. Florida · FL · Unidentified
Aug 27, 2026
Varma v. The Bank of New York MellonCA California (4d) · CA · Unidentified
Aug 27, 2026
Orozco de Figuera, Sol María c/ Pulpería Quilapán S.R.L. s/ DespidoCámara Nacional de Apelaciones del Trabajo, Sala II · Argentina · AI (implied, unspecified)
Aug 24, 2026
Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National AssociationCA Florida (2d) · FL · Unidentified
Aug 21, 2026
Unspecified murder appeal (Las Cruces area)New Mexico SC · NM · ChatGPT
Aug 21, 2026
Apelação Cível nº 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224TJ San Paulo · Brazil · Unidentified
Aug 13, 2026
JMOR Properties v. Artist Alley Townhomes et al.CA Florida (4d) · FL · Unidentified
Aug 12, 2026
Southland Homes & Real Estate and Investment, LLC v. LamSC California · CA · ChatGPT and Google Gemini
Aug 5, 2026
Barteca Holdings v. TacobarnD. Connecticut · CT · Open Law; Claude; ChatGPT
Aug 4, 2026
Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. KaloidisSC New York · NY · Claude and other generative AI platforms
Aug 4, 2026
Damon Forney v. Township of Cary, North CarolinaE.D. North Carolina · NC · No tool named in source
Aug 3, 2026
FJL v TGOGauteng Division, Johannesburg · South Africa · AI (implied, unspecified)
Jul 31, 2026
Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’nCA Illinois · IL · ChatGPT
Jul 28, 2026
Lodhia v Twelve TreesKing's Bench · GB · Unidentified
Jul 24, 2026
N°0035599-44.2017.8.16.0014TJ Parana · Brazil · No tool named in source
Jul 22, 2026
Minhye Park v. Hon. Barrington D. Parker, et al.S.D. New York · NY · GPT-3.5
Jul 15, 2026
Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al.11th Cir. CA · US · AI (implied, unspecified)
Jul 10, 2026
Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (2)S.D. New York · NY · Unidentified
Jul 10, 2026
Del Biaggio v. BansenCA California (4d) · CA · Unidentified
Jul 10, 2026
Open the full analytics view

Scope and limitation

This page groups existing structured public-record fields. For judges, the counts describe matters in which that person is recorded as a decision-maker; they do not establish a judge’s general practices or sanction rate. For every entity type, the view is not a comparison against unobserved proceedings.

Indexing and evidence status

This public entity profile is indexable and meets the evidence-depth baseline of at least 3 source-linked records.