Reaves Law Firm, PLLC v. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, 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 2 de junio de 2026, W.D. Tennessee (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited 'Press v. Vanderbilt University' for actual malice; court could find no such case and the citation led to an SEC No-Action letter instead.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited 'Thornbury v. Madison Cnty., 242 F. Supp. 3d 851, 860 (W.D. Tenn. 2017)'; court found no matching opinion and identified only an unrelated Jackson v. Lew, 242 F. Supp. 3d 850 (W.D. Mo. 2017).
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff attributed a quotation to Lazy Seven Coal Sales but the quoted language does not appear in the cited opinion.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff attributed a quotation to White v. McBride that the court determined does not exist in that opinion.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited Seaton v. Lawson Chevrolet-Mazda, a real case, for the proposition that a fiduciary duty of loyalty exists independent of negligence, but the case addressed punitive damages in a car sale and is unrelated to fiduciary duties.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited Hoover v. Langston Equip. Assocs., Inc., 958 F.2d 742 (6th Cir. 1992) as supporting that no authority imposes fiduciary duties from a client to a lawyer; court noted Hoover did not address attorney-client fiduciary duty and was misapplied.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited Whitehaven Cmty. Baptist Church v. Holloway for the proposition about constructive trust and unjust enrichment being unavailable where an express contract governs; court found the cited opinion does not reference constructive trusts and was misused.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited Givens v. Mullikin, 75 S.W.3d 383 (Tenn. 2002) for a proposition about attorney immunity and disloyalty, but the case's holding concerns vicarious liability for an attorney and does not support the cited proposition.

Desenlace

Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral. Sanción económica: 1 USD. Sanción profesional: Yes.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/2257/Reaves_Law_Firm_v._Baker_USA_2_June_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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