Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0OH5MZSGenerated August 16, 2026Evidence checked Aug 16, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Autos nº 0006113-73.2025.8.16.0033 (Agravo Interno Cível)

3ª Turma Recursal dos Juizados Especiais, TJPR · Sep 26, 2025

Jurisdiction
international
Court
3ª Turma Recursal dos Juizados Especiais, TJPR
Record ID
autos-no-0006113-73-2025-8-16-0033-agravo-interno-civel-2025-09-26
Observed 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.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Fake Citations
  • Trial
  • Professional
AI attribution
Not Established
Recorded tool
Unidentified
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
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.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

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.

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.