AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAC739-2026
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

AC739-2026

CSJ · Feb 13, 2026

ColombiaEditorial impact: highfake citationsmisrepresented authoritybar referralcontractMonetaryBar Referral
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court declared the lawyer's conduct as 'temeridad' (reckless litigation) due to the submission of fabricated case law and misrepresented legal norms generated by AI. The court imposed a monetary fine and ordered a referral to the disciplinary authorities for professional misconduct.

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

The Colombian Supreme Court (CSJ) sanctioned a lawyer for submitting multiple fabricated judicial precedents and misrepresented legal norms in a revision appeal. The lawyer initially cited non-existent case law and incorrectly attributed provisions to Article 250 of the General Code of Process. Upon being ordered to correct the filing, the lawyer submitted a 'subsanation' that contained further fabricated citations and altered legal texts. The lawyer subsequently admitted to using generative AI to draft the filings. The court declared the conduct 'temeridad' (reckless/bad faith litigation), imposed a monetary fine, and ordered a referral to the disciplinary authorities for professional misconduct.

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
OutcomeThe court declared the lawyer's actions as 'temeridad', imposed a monetary fine, and ordered a referral to the disciplinary authorities.
Known amount$1
Professional sanctionReferral to disciplinary authorities for professional misconduct.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The lawyer admitted to using an unidentified AI program.

Procedural posture

The case reached the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ) via a revision appeal. The court identified irregularities, ordered a correction (subsanation), and subsequently initiated a formal inquiry into the lawyer's conduct, resulting in a final ruling on temeridad.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
  6. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
  7. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
  8. Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
Show 5 additional discrepancies
  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
The court declared the lawyer's conduct as 'temeridad' (reckless litigation) due to the submission of fabricated case law and misrepresented legal norms generated by AI. The court imposed a monetary fine and ordered a referral to the disciplinary authorities for professional misconduct.
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.

The Doc App, Inc. d/b/a My Florida Green v. Leafwell, Inc. (1)M.D. Florida · Nov 26, 2025fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedMundy v. Clickstop, Inc.DC Nebraska · Oct 17, 2025fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedKleyman Law Group, P.C. v. KaloidisSC New York · Aug 4, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authorityNº 0104033-49.2025.8.16.0000TJ Parana · Apr 8, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authorityHeimkes v. Fairhope Motorcoach Resort Condominium Owners Association, Inc.S.D. Alabama · Mar 31, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authorityVirgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al.S.D. Indiana · Feb 12, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority