HomeCasesATSum 0010525-47.2025.5.03.0037

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

ATSum 0010525-47.2025.5.03.0037

Regional Labour Court · Jul 2, 2025

BrazilEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsemploymenttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Initial petition cited non-existent judicial precedents to support the claim; the defense flagged the fabrications and the court recognized them as such and as bad-faith conduct. Outcome: Monetary Sanctions. Counsel for the claimant admitted to using an AI tool to draft the initial legal document without verifying its content. This resulted in the creation of non-existent judicial precedents to support the claimant's case. The court found this to be a serious violation of procedural loyalty and good faith, as it attempted to deceive the court and the opposing party.…

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanctions; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Admitting AI use and apologizing reduced the fine — disclose early when citations collapse.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Admitting AI use and apologizing reduced the fine — disclose early when citations collapse.

Record details

CourtRegional Labour Court

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJul 2, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary Sanctions

Known amount$1

Professional sanctionNo

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

Monetary Sanctions

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Initial petition cited non-existent judicial precedents to support the claim; the defense flagged the fabrications and the court recognized them as such and as bad-faith conduct.
Fabricated: Case Law | Filing used names of TRT-3 desembargadores to simulate jurisprudence that does not exist, attempting to influence the court; the judge noted such 'jurisprudence' was easily verifiable as nonexistent.
Fabricated: Case Law | Citation of randomly created 'súmulas'; the court stated they were nonexistent, unnecessary, and easily checked on the TRT-3 website.

Questions this record answers

What happened in ATSum 0010525-47.2025.5.03.0037?: Fabricated: Case Law | Initial petition cited non-existent judicial precedents to support the claim; the defense flagged the fabrications and the court recognized them as such and as bad-faith conduct. Outcome: Monetary Sanctions. Counsel for the claimant admitted to using an AI tool to draft the initial legal document without verifying its content. This resulted in the creation of non-existent judicial precedents to support the claimant's case. The court found this to be a serious violation of procedural loyalty and good faith, as it attempted to deceive the court and the opposing party.…
Why does ATSum 0010525-47.2025.5.03.0037 matter for legal AI risk?: Admitting AI use and apologizing reduced the fine — disclose early when citations collapse.
What does the public record establish about ATSum 0010525-47.2025.5.03.0037?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this ATSum 0010525-47.2025.5.03.0037 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.

Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty LtdFamily Court · Jul 1, 2026fake citations + employment · same recorded tool: Unidentified Casey A. Gaddy v. Wood Brothers Bar, Inc., et al.E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2026fake citations + employment · same recorded tool: Unidentified Murphy v Aspen Living Villages Pty LtdFamily Court · May 6, 2026fake citations + employment · same recorded tool: Unidentified Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, Inc.C.D. California · Apr 17, 2026fake citations + employment · same recorded tool: Unidentified Jamie Lee Saunders v. Albertsons/Safeway, LLCD. Colorado · Apr 16, 2026fake citations + employment · same recorded tool: Unidentified Cynthia White v. Walmart, Inc.S.D. Indiana · Apr 14, 2026fake citations + employment · same recorded tool: Unidentified

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Admitting AI use and apologizing reduced the fine — disclose early when citations collapse.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Filing used names of TRT-3 desembargadores to simulate jurisprudence that does not exist, attempting to influence the court; the judge noted such 'jurisprudence' was easily verifiable as nonexistent.

Fabricated: Case Law | Citation of randomly created 'súmulas'; the court stated they were nonexistent, unnecessary, and easily checked on the TRT-3 website.

Questions this record answers

What happened in ATSum 0010525-47.2025.5.03.0037?

Why does ATSum 0010525-47.2025.5.03.0037 matter for legal AI risk?

Admitting AI use and apologizing reduced the fine — disclose early when citations collapse.

What does the public record establish about ATSum 0010525-47.2025.5.03.0037?

Which source supports this ATSum 0010525-47.2025.5.03.0037 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.