William Parker v. Patrick "Pat" Labat, 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 21 de enero de 2026, N.D. Georgia (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. Court found a cited case does not exist and counsel cited it as Eleventh Circuit authority.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Court determined the language counsel attributed to the Fourth Circuit's Akers opinion does not appear in that decision.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Court found counsel quoted language that does not appear in Cutliffe and relied on that misquotation.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Court found the quoted passage counsel attributed to Underwood does not appear in that opinion and the reliance was misplaced.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Court found the passage counsel attributed to Randall does not appear in that opinion.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court concluded counsel misstated the holding of Reeves, treating an ADEA decision as establishing a constitutional right.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court found counsel relied on Moss in support of a sheriff-deputy patronage argument, but Moss involved a firefighter and did not apply the Elrod-Branti analysis.

Desenlace

CLE; Sworn statement. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1483/Parker_v._Labat_USA_21_January_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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