Back to live profile
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
AI TOOL EVIDENCE REPORTAV-ER-0QZ6T11Generated September 12, 2026Evidence checked Sep 11, 2026
AI TOOL EVIDENCE REPORT

Lexis+ AI

A print-ready review packet of the issues, recorded responses, participant context, and source-linked matters currently associated with this profile.

Matched records4
Source linked100%
Known amount total$4,000
Recorded rangeMay 5, 2025 Mar 10, 2026
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What issues and consequences appear in records that identify Lexis+ AI?

AI Vortex currently links 4 source-linked public matters that identify Lexis+ AI. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (3), Misrepresented authority (3) and Fabricated or altered quotations (2). Recorded responses and outcomes include Bar or professional referral (2), Monetary sanction (2) and Professional discipline (2). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the tool.

Every distribution below links to the exact matching records. This report does not convert corpus counts into a behavioral prediction.
OBSERVED ISSUE MIX

What problems appear in these records?

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.
RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

A recorded response does not imply that every matter ended in a sanction.
PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 4 of 4
Mar 10, 2026Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (1)S.D. New YorkProtégé (LexisNexis)Source
Jan 26, 2026Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSpot.com Inc.E.D. PennsylvaniaLexis+ AI; LexisNexis ProtégéSource
Jan 13, 2026Viken v. SchuelkeMinnesota DCLexis AssistSource
May 5, 2025Flowz Digital v. Caroline DalalC.D. CaliforniaLexis+AISource
Open all matching records
EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

Scope, traceability, and limits

This report 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 general practices, sanction rates, or future behavior.

The complete docket, later history, local rules, standing orders, and controlling primary materials remain authoritative.