Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
AC739-2026
CSJ · Feb 13, 2026
ColombiaEditorial impact: highfake citationsmisrepresented authoritybar referralcontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set). Outcome: Temeridad declaration; monetary fine; bar referral.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set). || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set). || Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set). || Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set). || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The filing attributed specific numbered causes to Article 250 CGP (numerals 5 and 7) though Article 250 concerns documentary probative indivisibility and has no such numerals; court found the attribution false. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | In the subsanation the lawyer cited Article 355.7 and 355.8 with texts that do not correspond to the authentic wording of those numerals; court found the content altered to fit the argument. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Two Constitutional Court decisions were cited with content materially different from their true subject matter (false attribution); court found the attributions incorrect.
- Why it matters now
- Repeating fabricated citations in the subsanation triggered a temeridad declaration and bar referral — do not double down.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set). Outcome: Temeridad declaration; monetary fine; bar referral.
Operational lesson
Repeating fabricated citations in the subsanation triggered a temeridad declaration and bar referral — do not double down.
Record details
CourtCSJ
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateFeb 13, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeTemeridad declaration; monetary fine; bar referral
Known amount$1
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Temeridad declaration; monetary fine; bar referral
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
13 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
Show 5 additional discrepancies
- Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The filing attributed specific numbered causes to Article 250 CGP (numerals 5 and 7) though Article 250 concerns documentary probative indivisibility and has no such numerals; court found the attribution false.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | In the subsanation the lawyer cited Article 355.7 and 355.8 with texts that do not correspond to the authentic wording of those numerals; court found the content altered to fit the argument.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Two Constitutional Court decisions were cited with content materially different from their true subject matter (false attribution); court found the attributions incorrect.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in AC739-2026?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set). Outcome: Temeridad declaration; monetary fine; bar referral.
- Why does AC739-2026 matter for legal AI risk?
- Repeating fabricated citations in the subsanation triggered a temeridad declaration and bar referral — do not double down.
- What does the public record establish about AC739-2026?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this AC739-2026 summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.