Lnu v. Blanche
9th Cir. · Estados Unidos, 3 de junio de 2026 · Fabricación. Ficha verificada del Equipo Editorial.
Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.
El 3 de junio de 2026, 9th Cir. (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.
Qué se alucinó
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Opening brief cited a case that does not exist.
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Opening brief cited a case that does not exist.
- Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quotation attributed to Kamalthas does not appear in that opinion.
- Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quotation attributed to Avendano-Hernandez does not appear in that opinion.
- Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Real cases were represented as supporting propositions they do not discuss (mischaracterization of holdings).
- Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Real case cited for a point about affidavits when the opinion does not discuss affidavits.
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Additional fabricated citations identified in other briefs filed by the same attorney.
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Fabricated citations identified in another matter filed by the same attorney.
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Opening brief cited a case that does not exist; Court found the citation fabricated and replacement citation (Udo) did not support the claimed proposition.
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Opening brief cited a second case that does not exist; Court found no plausible typographical explanation and replacement citation (Lai) did not support the original point.
- Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quotation attributed to Kamalthas appears in the brief but the quoted language does not appear in Kamalthas; Court treated this as a false quotation.
- Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quotation attributed to Avendano-Hernandez does not appear in that opinion; Court flagged as misattributed quotation.
- Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court found that Singh was cited for propositions about adverse credibility and translation errors although the opinion concerns timeliness/equitable tolling; characterized as gross misrepresentation of a real case.
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Court identified multiple additional fabricated citations in other briefs filed by the same attorney (examples listed) and treated these as further fabricated authorities.
Desenlace
Monetary Sanction; 6-month Suspension; Notification Requirement; Bar Suspension. Sanción económica: 5000 USD. Sanción profesional: Yes.
Ficha del caso
| Caso | Lnu v. Blanche |
| Jurisdicción | 9th Cir. |
| País | Estados Unidos |
| Fecha | 3 de junio de 2026 |
| Quién usó IA | Lawyer |
| Herramienta | Unidentified |
| Área del derecho | immigration |
Fuentes: aporte de /documents/2259/Lnu_v._Blanche_USA_3_June_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.
¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.