Docket entry 29, 27 August 2026 · source · PDF · 6 pages
Docket text. Opposition
These are hallmark artifacts of OCR mis-conversion, not of AI-fabricated “hallucinated” case law, which typically manufactures entire case names or holdings that do not exist at all.
ARGUMENT POINT I THE CITATION ERRORS RESULTED FROM OPTICAL CHARACTER RECOGNITION ERRORS, NOT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND THE UNDERLYING MOTION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN 6. The Trustee's Motion is built substantially aroun d the premise that Counsel submitted AI- generated “hallucinated” case citations to the Court, and devotes extensive discussion to case law addressing sanctions for that specific form of misconduct. See Motion ¶¶ 7-16 (citing In re Martin , 670 B.R.
This distinguishes the present matter sharply from the AI- hallucination cases the Trustee relies upon, in which counsel cited entirely fabricated cases that do not exist in any reporter.
The motion was withdrawn. The isolated citation- verification lapse, promptly corrected through withdrawal of the motion in which it appeared, is a materially different matter from the knowing or reckless submission of fabricated authority, and does not, standing alone, support disgorgement of the entirety of a fee for the case. 9.