Skip to main content
Incident intelligence/SS-IR-034CASE FILE OPEN
Symbolic editorial illustration for SS-IR-034SERVANTSTACK // INCIDENT INTELLIGENCEFORENSIC IMAGE // VERIFIED FRAME
SS-IR-034 // INCIDENT REPORTAlleged

Mata v. Avianca

Lawyer Submits AI-Fabricated Court Citations

EXECUTIVE BRIEF

Attorney Steven Schwartz used ChatGPT to research case law for a personal injury lawsuit against Avianca Airlines.

SAFETY & SOCIETY
FAILURE CHAINTRACE COMPLETE
  1. 01TRIGGERAttorney Steven Schwartz used ChatGPT to research case law for a personal injury lawsuit against Avianca Airlines.
  2. 02MACHINE ACTIONAdvisory output
  3. 03MISSING GATERisk-based SME approval before execution
  4. 04IMPACTRights & due process
01 // INCIDENT SUMMARY

The short version

Attorney Steven Schwartz used ChatGPT to research case law for a personal injury lawsuit against Avianca Airlines.

02 // KEY FACTS

Case telemetry

INCIDENT
SS-IR-034
DATE
June 22, 2023
SYSTEM
Mata v. Avianca
LOCATION / SCOPE
New York, USA
EVIDENCE
Alleged
AI ROLE
Advisory output
HARM
Rights & due process
SOURCES
1 cited record
03ENTRY POINT // WHAT HAPPENED

The event

Attorney Steven Schwartz used ChatGPT to research case law for a personal injury lawsuit against Avianca Airlines. ChatGPT generated six court decisions that sounded real but did not exist - complete with fabricated case names, docket numbers, and judicial quotes. Schwartz submitted these fake citations to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York without verifying any of them. When opposing counsel couldn't find the cases, the court ordered Schwartz to produce copies. He asked ChatGPT to confirm they were real. It confirmed they were.

04CAUSAL TRACE // AI'S ACTUAL ROLE

What the machine did

ChatGPT generated plausible-sounding but entirely fabricated case law - a well-documented behavior called hallucination. When asked to verify its own fabrications, the AI doubled down, confirming the fake cases existed and even generating fake excerpts. The attorney treated AI output as research fact without cross-referencing any legal database.

Advisory outputAutomation was a causal participant—not a decorative label for the system around it.
05BLAST RADIUS // CONSEQUENCES

Where the failure landed

Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned Schwartz and his colleague Peter LoDuca $5,000. The attorneys were publicly reprimanded. The case became a landmark warning about AI hallucination in professional practice. Courts nationwide began issuing rules requiring attorneys to verify AI-assisted research and disclose AI use in filings.

06 // EVIDENCE STATUS

Alleged

Claims reported in litigation or public allegations; not presented here as a final finding.

SOURCE RECORD UPDATED 2026-07-09

07 // SOURCE LEDGER

1 cited record

  1. 01
08CONTROL FAILURE // MISSING GOVERNANCE

Risk-based SME approval before execution

The failure pattern in this case: High-stakes output had no accountable checkpoint.

09INTERVENTION POINT // HUMAN IN THE MIDDLE

The moment the path could change

The appropriate subject-matter expert reviews the evidence, exceptions, and affected people before the output becomes action.

AI PROPOSES→HUMAN OWNS THE DECISION→SYSTEM EXECUTES
10CONTROL DEPLOYMENT // AUTHORITYGATE

Risk routing · named approval · audit trail

AuthorityGate's framework mandates source verification by a domain SME before any AI-generated content enters a decision chain. A paralegal or attorney verifying each citation against Westlaw or LexisNexis - a 10-minute task - would have caught all six fabricated cases. The framework treats AI output as a draft, never as a source.

RELEVANT KEYSTONE CONTROLHuman-in-the-Loop ValidationHow high-risk actions route to a named subject-matter expert who owns the go or no-go decision.
12 // THE ALTERNATIVE

Autonomy is a design choice.

See the operating model that keeps AI useful while preserving human authority at consequential moments.

Compare AgenticAI and AugmentedAI →