Autos nº 0006113-73.2025.8.16.0033 (Agravo Interno Cível)
3ª Turma Recursal dos Juizados Especiais, TJPR · Sep 26, 2025
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Use of a fabricated precedent (attributed to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça, referenced as from 2011) generated by an AI system to support the request for gratuidade da justiça; court noted superficial review would have revealed the falsehood. Outcome: Court held that the use of an AI-generated false precedent constituted litigância de má-fé; maintained the monocratic decision condemning the lawyer for use of a false precedent and remittance of the facts to OAB/PR, while declining to impose an additional fine for the internal appeal.. The appellant relied on a precedent created by an AI system to support a request for gratuidade da justiça. The court found the citation to be a fabricated precedent attributed to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça and considered the conduct grave enough to constitute litigância de má-fé. The court emphasized attorneys' duty to verify AI outputs, noted that intent is not required to find bad faith when objective facts show an attempt to induce error, maintained the monocratic decision (including remittance to OAB/PR), but did not impose an additional fine for filing the internal appeal.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and trial and records Court held that the use of an AI-generated false precedent constituted litigância de má-fé; maintained the monocratic decision condemning the lawyer for use of a false precedent and remittance of the facts to OAB/PR, while declining to impose an additional fine for the internal appeal.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with Court held that the use of an AI-generated false precedent constituted litigância de má-fé; maintained the monocratic decision condemning the lawyer for use of a false precedent and remittance of the facts to OAB/PR, while declining to impose an additional fine for the internal appeal. in 3ª Turma Recursal dos Juizados Especiais, TJPR. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Use of a fabricated precedent (attributed to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça, referenced as from 2011) generated by an AI system to support the request for gratuidade da justiça; court noted superficial review would have revealed the falsehood. Outcome: Court held that the use of an AI-generated false precedent constituted litigância de má-fé; maintained the monocratic decision condemning the lawyer for use of a false precedent and remittance of the facts to OAB/PR, while declining to impose an additional fine for the internal appeal.. The appellant relied on a precedent created by an AI system to support a request for gratuidade da justiça. The court found the citation to be a fabricated precedent attributed to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça and considered the conduct grave enough to constitute litigância de má-fé. The court emphasized attorneys' duty to verify AI outputs, noted that intent is not required to find bad faith when objective facts show an attempt to induce error, maintained the monocratic decision (including remittance to OAB/PR), but did not impose an additional fine for filing the internal appeal.
This matter connects fake citations and trial with Court held that the use of an AI-generated false precedent constituted litigância de má-fé; maintained the monocratic decision condemning the lawyer for use of a false precedent and remittance of the facts to OAB/PR, while declining to impose an additional fine for the internal appeal. in 3ª Turma Recursal dos Juizados Especiais, TJPR. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Court held that the use of an AI-generated false precedent constituted litigância de má-fé; maintained the monocratic decision condemning the lawyer for use of a false precedent and remittance of the facts to OAB/PR, while declining to impose an additional fine for the internal appeal.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Use of a fabricated precedent (attributed to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça, referenced as from 2011) generated by an AI system to support the request for gratuidade da justiça; court noted superficial review would have revealed the falsehood.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Autos nº 0006113-73.2025.8.16.0033 (Agravo Interno Cível)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Use of a fabricated precedent (attributed to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça, referenced as from 2011) generated by an AI system to support the request for gratuidade da justiça; court noted superficial review would have revealed the falsehood. Outcome: Court held that the use of an AI-generated false precedent constituted litigância de má-fé; maintained the monocratic decision condemning the lawyer for use of a false precedent and remittance of the facts to OAB/PR, while declining to impose an additional fine for the internal appeal.. The appellant relied on a precedent created by an AI system to support a request for gratuidade da justiça. The court found the citation to be a fabricated precedent attributed to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça and considered the conduct grave enough to constitute litigância de má-fé. The court emphasized attorneys' duty to verify AI outputs, noted that intent is not required to find bad faith when objective facts show an attempt to induce error, maintained the monocratic decision (including remittance to OAB/PR), but did not impose an additional fine for filing the internal appeal.
- Why does Autos nº 0006113-73.2025.8.16.0033 (Agravo Interno Cível) matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with Court held that the use of an AI-generated false precedent constituted litigância de má-fé; maintained the monocratic decision condemning the lawyer for use of a false precedent and remittance of the facts to OAB/PR, while declining to impose an additional fine for the internal appeal. in 3ª Turma Recursal dos Juizados Especiais, TJPR. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Autos nº 0006113-73.2025.8.16.0033 (Agravo Interno Cível)?
- 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 Autos nº 0006113-73.2025.8.16.0033 (Agravo Interno Cível) 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.