AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 28, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Home/failure modes/Fake Citations
Source-linked corpus view

Fake Citations

Fake Citations appears in 1,858 of 2,223 public corpus records (83.6%). This page describes the recorded dataset, not an incidence rate, prevalence of AI use, or a prediction of future outcomes.

Open evidence reportSearch matching recordsMethodology
Matched records1,858
Corpus denominator2,223
Source linked99.7%
Latest trackedOct 23, 2026
Evidence-based answer

Where does Fake Citations appear and what responses are recorded?

Taxonomy definition: Authorities or citations recorded as nonexistent, inaccurate, or not locatable in the cited form.

AI Vortex currently links 1,858 source-linked public matters classified with Fake Citations. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (1,858), Misrepresented authority (783) and Fabricated or altered quotations (593). Recorded responses and outcomes include No adjudicated consequence recorded (616), Warning or admonishment (576) and Monetary sanction (394). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the failure.

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

Leading issue signalFabricated authorities1,858 records
Leading recorded responseNo adjudicated consequence recorded616 records
Known USD amounts$1,602,053.23187 known · 209 unquantified
Recorded date rangeApr 14, 2023through Oct 23, 2026
Observed issue mix

What problems appear in these records?

Fabricated authorities1,858 · 100%Misrepresented authority783 · 42.1%Fabricated or altered quotations593 · 31.9%

Issue categories can overlap within a single matter.

Recorded consequences

How did courts or authorities respond?

No adjudicated consequence recorded616 · 33.2%Warning or admonishment576 · 31%Monetary sanction394 · 21.2%Bar or professional referral162 · 8.7%Professional discipline152 · 8.2%Dismissal or adverse disposition99 · 5.3%

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

Participant context

Who appears in these matters?

Pro Se Litigant1,093 · 58.8%Lawyer710 · 38.2%Judge17 · 0.9%Expert11 · 0.6%
Matter context

Which practice areas are represented?

Contract413 · 22.2%Administrative246 · 13.2%Civil Rights182 · 9.8%Employment173 · 9.3%Tort169 · 9.1%
Attribution status

How is AI involvement recorded?

Tool not identified874 · 47%AI implied or unspecified779 · 41.9%Named AI tool recorded191 · 10.3%Allegation-only record14 · 0.8%

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

Corpus evolution

When were these matters recorded?

20261,086 · 58.4%2025727 · 39.1%202437 · 2%20238 · 0.4%

Public records in this view

Showing the most recent 24 of 1,858 matching records.

American Leadership Academy, et al. v. Kristina Sherburne, et al.CA Arizona (1d) · AZ · No tool named in source
Oct 23, 2026
Boyd v. Beachwood City School District Board of EducationN.D. Ohio · OH · Unidentified
Oct 23, 2026
Paananen v. Peckham, Inc.W.D. Michigan · MI · No tool named in source
Oct 23, 2026
Johnny Tyson II v. Warren Inn Haltom City Ltd. d/b/a Acacia ApartmentsCA Texas (2d) · TX · No tool named in source
Oct 22, 2026
Moore v. Jackson Walker LLP, et al.S.D. Texas · TX · No tool named in source
Oct 21, 2026
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and National Treasury Employees Union, 74 FLRA No. 87Federal Labor Relations Authority · US · AI (implied, unspecified)
Oct 21, 2026
Chilingarian v. Blanche10th Cir. CA · US · No tool named in source
Oct 20, 2026
Weyland v. Second Judicial District Court, et al.D. Nevada · NV · No tool named in source
Oct 20, 2026
Commonwealth v. ButlerSC Pennsylvania · PA · No tool named in source
Oct 19, 2026
Hadarou Sare v. Central Collection Unit, et al.AC Maryland · MD · No tool named in source
Oct 16, 2026
Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited v. Gstaad Hotels Private LimitedSupreme Court · India · Unidentified
Oct 15, 2026
Waushara County v. Beatrice BruningCA Wisconsin · WI · No tool named in source
Oct 15, 2026
Davis v. Tressler and YorkCA Indiana · IN · No tool named in source
Oct 14, 2026
Sabatini v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionC. Pennsylvania · PA · No tool named in source
Oct 14, 2026
Deen v. VMK, Inc.CA California (6d) · CA · No tool named in source
Oct 13, 2026
King v. AT&T Corp. et al.W.D. Washington · WA · No tool named in source
Oct 13, 2026
Glenn v. Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC, et al.M.D. Florida · FL · Unidentified
Oct 9, 2026
Avargil et al. v. Yaakov et al.MC Nof HaGalil-Nazareth · Israel · Unidentified
Oct 8, 2026
In the Matter of Gary Brown, Jr.AC Maryland · MD · No tool named in source
Oct 8, 2026
Thorogood v. Merit Systems Protection BoardFed. Cir. · US · Unidentified
Oct 8, 2026
U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of the Chalet Series IV Trust v. Rosy Esprecion ThomasHawaii ICA · HI · No tool named in source
Oct 8, 2026
Butler v. The Travelers Indemnity CompanySC Connecticut · CT · No tool named in source
Oct 7, 2026
Duckett v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin SystemW.D. Wisconsin · WI · Unidentified
Oct 7, 2026
Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services ex rel. Shaina Matos v. Daniel BadeaCA Illinois (1d) · IL · No tool named in source
Oct 7, 2026
Open all matching records

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.