Mark Lillard v. Offit Kurman, P.A.

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 12 de marzo de 2025, SC Delaware (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co., 52 Cal.App.4th 820 (Ct. App. 1997) but used it to suggest conduct by an attorney; court found the case concerns an accountant, not an attorney (mischaracterization).
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited a Delaware decision from the Dow Chemical litigation (42 Del. J. Corp. L 509, C.A. No. 12090-VCG (2018)) and attributed two specific quoted statements to it; the court could not find those quoted statements in that opinion.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff referenced "Spence v. Spence" and attributed the quote “[d]ismissal is appropriate only if it is reasonably certain that the plaintiff could not prove any set of facts that would entitle him to relief.” Court located Spence v. Spence, 2012 WL 1495324 (Del. Super. Apr. 20, 2012) but the quoted language is not in that opinion; quote cannot be verified.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited E.E.C. v. E.J.C., 457 A.2d 688 (Del. 1983) to support standing because harm to a business flows to the owner; court noted E.E.C. concerns a divorce valuation of a husband's sole proprietorship and does not support Plaintiff's asserted proposition.

Desenlace

AI-use certification required for future filings. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1529/Mark_Lillard_v._Offit_Kurman_USA_12_March_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.