Robbins v. Martin Law Firm, P.L.

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

El 28 de julio de 2025, M.D. Florida (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 a non-existent M.D. Fla. decision as Baker v. BDO Seidman, LLP; court notes plaintiff conceded the citation was incorrect and the real case was a non-binding N.D. Cal. decision not involving bankruptcy.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff attributed a sentence about remand promoting judicial economy and discouraging forum shopping to Republic Reader’s; the court found the quotation does not exist in the opinion.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff quoted Eastus as requiring courts to weigh in favor of remand in non-core state law proceedings; the court found the quotation does not exist and noted Eastus did not involve bankruptcy.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited Kircher for the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction on the removing party; the court explained Kircher addressed appellate review of remand orders and footnote 12 was unrelated.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff asserted Hirsch reaffirmed that malpractice and fiduciary duty claims are generally non-core and belong in state court; the court noted plaintiff conceded this was inaccurate, with only state-law application being similar.

Desenlace

No monetary sanctions imposed; warning issued. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/710/Robbins_v._Martin_USA_28_July_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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