Puerto Rico Soccer League NFP, Corp., et al. v. Federación Puertorriqueña de Futbol, et al.

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

El 23 de septiembre de 2025, D.C. Puerto Rico (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

• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Attributed to Kevlik that MR 3.7(a)(3) substantial hardship exemption is interpreted broadly to protect against “unnecessary disruption”; court found no mention of MR 3.7 in Kevlik.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Kevlik for “no clear and convincing MR 1.7 conflict”; court found no such language and noted MR 1.7 was not controlling there.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Culebra Enters. as calling disqualification an “extreme sanction” used only after “careful consideration”; court found no such quotes and that the case was about fee sanctions, not disqualification.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Claimed Culebra Enters. held informed consent cures MR 1.7 conflicts and ethical rules are “flexible” absent systemic harm; court found no such support and noted the case did not address MR 1.7.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Asserted Culebra Enters. deferred disqualification until “actual necessity” of lawyer-witness; court found no such language and that the case allowed pretrial work by a potential witness, not deferral of disqualification.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Claimed Culebra Enters. defers disqualification until necessity to testify is “clearly established”; court found no such support.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Fabricated First Circuit citation to Estrada; correct case is a D.P.R. decision.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Estrada that disqualification is “not lightly granted”; court found no such quote (only similar general statements).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited Estrada for rule that disqualification requires “tangible harm,” not “theoretical risks”; court said this contradicts Estrada’s recognition that potential threats can suffice under the substantially related test.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Fiandaca as requiring “specific instances” of conflict and rejecting “hypothetical scenarios”; court found no such quotes or support.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Attributed to Fiandaca that the First Circuit applies Model Rule 3.7 “narrowly” to avoid “tactical misuse”; court found no mention of MR 3.7 and no such quotes.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Fiandaca to label Defendants’ Rule 1.7 claim “wholly speculative” for lack of evidence; court found no such quote in Fiandaca.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Used Fiandaca to assert early disqualification is “unduly punitive” and that delay is preferred; court said the opinion held nearly the opposite and contained no such quote.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited Fiandaca to argue disqualification would unduly prejudice Plaintiffs; court noted Fiandaca discussed prejudice to the movant seeking disqualification, not to the party opposing it.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Kevlik as imposing a “high standard” for disqualification; court found no such phrasing.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Kevlik that choice of counsel is a “valued right” balanced with “scrupulous care”; court found no such quotes and observed the case emphasizes preventing unethical conduct over unfettered choice in civil cases.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Kevlik that disqualification is unwarranted without “demonstrable detriment”; court found no such language and explained the substantially related test does not require that showing.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Asserted Kevlik requires a “specific showing” of conflicting interests under MR 1.7, not mere affiliation; court said Kevlik’s substantially related test assumes confidences and requires no such specific showing.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Culebra Enters. that necessity is assessed “in light of available alternatives”; court found no such text.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Culebra Enters. that ethical rules prioritize “practical outcomes” over rigid bans; court found the opinion merely limited MR 3.7 to trial advocacy and did not make such a broad pronouncement.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Used Culebra Enters. to claim MR 3.7 disqualification requires “actual necessity,” not “potential relevance”; court found no support and noted the case did not address disqualification.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Stated Culebra Enters. holds hardship weighs “heavily” against disqualification under MR 3.7; court found no such specific weighting in the opinion.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Argued, citing Culebra Enters., that applying MR 3.7 now is premature; court found no such determination in the opinion.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Said Estrada upheld representation absent “actual showing” of divided loyalty; court found no such quote and noted Estrada applied different ethical rules.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Asserted Estrada shows delays in filing disqualification motions signal bad faith and late motions are “viewed skeptically”; court found no such support.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Polyagro Plastics that MR-based disqualification requires a “clear and convincing” violation threatening judicial integrity; court found no such language.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Quoted In re Grand Jury Proceedings to require “actual prejudice” not “mere possibility” for disqualification; court found no such quote and noted a serious potential conflict may suffice.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Claimed First Circuit does not let parties “second-guess” co-parties’ joint counsel choice unless clear abuse; court found the Government was permitted to challenge joint counsel in that case.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Asserted the First Circuit dismisses privilege gamesmanship concerns absent “actual prejudice”; court noted the case allows disqualification for a serious potential conflict.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Quoted that privilege issues are resolved “case-by-case,” not preemptively; court noted only Wheat’s general case-specific evaluation language, not Plaintiffs’ formulation.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Asserted MR 8.4 requires “intentional deceit”; court found no mention of MR 8.4 in the opinion.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Quoted Herrera-Venegas to label § 1654 a “fundamental” right to self-representation and that litigants “may conduct their own cases”; court found no such quotes and a different holding.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Placed in quotes Oppenheimer language on Rule 26(b)(1) “casts a wide net” and “bears on … any issue …”; court found the quoted phrasing not in the opinion and emphasized current proportionality limits.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Fabricated First Circuit citation to the NECC MDL; correct authority is a D. Mass. 2013 order.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted NECC MDL that Rule 26 has a “broad sweep”; court found no such quote (only general statements of liberal discovery).
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted NECC MDL that defendants’ conduct is “inextricably intertwined” with the antitrust conspiracy; court found no such quote (only general discovery breadth language).
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Fabricated First Circuit citation to Healey v. Gonzalez; Plaintiffs later claimed they meant Healy v. Spencer.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Healy v. Spencer to claim relevance is construed “generously” and discovery limited only if it has “no possible bearing”; court found neither the quotes nor support in that habeas opinion.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted In re Subpoena to Witzel that a Rule 26(c) protective order requires a “particular and specific demonstration of fact” beyond conclusory statements; court found no such quote or discussion of that standard.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Relied on Witzel to argue defendants provided only conclusory assertions about 68 witnesses being unmanageable; court said Witzel concerned a motion to compel and did not support that use.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted DM Research that antitrust claims often require “exploration of the conspirators’ minds and actions”; court found no such statement.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited DM Research to say antitrust cases often require extensive evidence; court noted the case affirmed dismissal before discovery, so the proposition was unsupported.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Fabricated First Circuit citation to Sullivan v. Taglianetti; court could not locate the case.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited Gill to warn against “arbitrary numerical limits” on witnesses; court found no supporting language in the opinion, which concerned informant’s privilege.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Mischaracterized Whittingham as a post-discovery ruling; court noted discovery was ongoing.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Public Citizen v. Liggett that a protective order requires “specific facts, not conclusory statements”; court found no such quote.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Public Citizen v. Liggett that a “particularized showing” is required; court found no such language.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Anderson v. Cryovac that discovery should be “as broad as possible”; court found no such quote and noted the current relevance and proportionality limits of Rule 26(b)(1).
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Fabricated First Circuit citation by naming the wrong party in Gill as “Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.”
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Used Gill to argue Swiss Penal Code language in a protective order would confuse and delay discovery contrary to First Circuit efficiency goals; court found no support in the opinion.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited In re Grand Jury Subpoena (2001) to say ethical rules focus on actual conflicts, not hypothetical risks; court found the case dealt with privilege and did not support that proposition.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Fabricated First Circuit citation to United States v. Gannett Co.; court identified only D.D.C. antitrust cases with different content.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Poliquin that a protective order requires a “specific demonstration of need”; court found no such quote and explained Poliquin concerned post-trial protection standards.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misstated circuit and substance for In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Fourth Circuit), invoking the Hague Evidence Convention which the case does not mention.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Quoted Aerospatiale that Hague procedures are “permissive” at pages 539–40; court noted that wording does not appear there (similar language exists on other pages).

Desenlace

Order to pay opposing counsel's fees. Sanción económica: 24492 USD. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/562/Puerto_Rico_Soccer_League_v._Federacion_USA_10_April_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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