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
HomeCasesB., V. E. v. C., B. R. Y.
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 90/100. 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

B., V. E. v. C., B. R. Y.

CA Córdoba · Sep 5, 2025

ArgentinaEditorial impact: lowfake citationscontractappellateMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court denied the defendant's cassation appeal and declared the attorney's work ineffective due to the inclusion of fabricated case law. Consequently, the court refused to award professional fees to the attorney for the appeal, citing the failure to verify AI-generated research, and issued a formal recommendation for future professional diligence.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that the attorney's reliance on unverified AI-generated citations violated the duty of professional diligence, probity, and good faith. It emphasized the 'human reservation' principle, stating that AI must serve as a support tool rather than a replacement for professional judgment, and that counsel bears ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of all court submissions.
Why it matters now
Losing fees on the entire appeal is the new price of unverified AI research — treat cite-checking as billable QA.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Cita de Cámara local indicada en el recurso que no fue localizada: Cám. Civ. y Com. de 1ª Nom. de Córdoba, 'Pérez, R. c/ S., J. y otros s/ Posesión veinteañal', 05/06/2020. Outcome: Counsel's Work not Counted for Costs. El tribunal verificó que varias sentencias invocadas por la recurrente no pudieron ser halladas en repertorios oficiales; asumió, por el beneficio de la duda, que ello provino del mal uso de herramientas de IA y advirtió la obligación profesional de verificar fuentes. Se impone recomendación al letrado y se declaran inoficiosos sus trabajos en el recurso (sin condena disciplinaria formal).

Operational lesson

Losing fees on the entire appeal is the new price of unverified AI research — treat cite-checking as billable QA.

Record details

CourtCA Córdoba
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateSep 5, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court denied the appeal, issued a formal recommendation to the attorney regarding citation verification, and denied the attorney's request for professional fees for the appeal, declaring the work ineffective.
Known amountARS 0
Professional sanctionThe court issued a formal recommendation to the attorney and denied professional fees for the appeal due to ineffective work.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court attributed the errors to the misuse of AI tools.

Procedural posture

Cassation appeal filed by the defendant, resolved by the Cámara de Apelaciones en lo Civil y Comercial de Córdoba on September 5, 2025.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Cita de Cámara local indicada en el recurso que no fue localizada: Cám. Civ. y Com. de 1ª Nom. de Córdoba, 'Pérez, R. c/ S., J. y otros s/ Posesión veinteañal', 05/06/2020.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Sentencia federal citada por la parte no verificada en repertorios: CNCiv., Sala F, 'M., N. c/ M., R. y otros s/ Prescripción Adquisitiva', 14/11/2017.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Otra referencia de cámara federal invocada que no pudo comprobarse: CNCiv., Sala G, 'S., F. c/D., M. J. s/ Prescripción Adquisitiva', 28/08/2018.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Cita invocada por la recurrente que no pudo comprobarse en repertorios: CSJN, 'Quiroga, Nicasio c/ Provincia de Buenos Aires s/ Usucapión', señalada como Fallos 325:475 del 05/03/2002.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Cita jurisdiccional provincial indicada por la recurrente no verificada: TSJ, Sala Civil y Comercial, 'Pérez, Juan c/ García, María - Usucapión', sentencia del 15/05/2023.
  6. Fabricated: Case Law | Cita señalada pero inexistente en búsquedas: TSJ, Sala Civil y Comercial, 'Martínez, Ana c/ Gobierno de la Provincia de Córdoba - Nulidad', sentencia del 18/02/2022.
  7. Fabricated: Case Law | Fallo referido por la parte que no pudo ser corroborado: TSJ, Sala Civil y Comercial, 'Gómez, Laura c/ Empresa de Transporte - Daños y Perjuicios', Sentencia del 10/04/2024.
  8. Fabricated: Case Law | Referencia jurisprudencial citada por la recurrente no hallada: 'Fernández, Carlos c/ Banco XYZ - Nulidad de Acto Jurídico' (sin fecha ni asiento verificable).

Questions this record answers

What happened in B., V. E. v. C., B. R. Y.?
The court denied the defendant's cassation appeal and declared the attorney's work ineffective due to the inclusion of fabricated case law. Consequently, the court refused to award professional fees to the attorney for the appeal, citing the failure to verify AI-generated research, and issued a formal recommendation for future professional diligence.
Why does B., V. E. v. C., B. R. Y. matter for legal AI risk?
Losing fees on the entire appeal is the new price of unverified AI research — treat cite-checking as billable QA.
What does the public record establish about B., V. E. v. C., B. R. Y.?
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 B., V. E. v. C., B. R. Y. 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.

LPC Commercial Services, LLC v. Ar-Razzaaq Properties, LLCCA Virginia · Aug 25, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)WRI Summit REIT LP v. KuerschnerCA Arizona (1d) · Aug 10, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)First Community Credit Union v. Ashley SmithCA Wisconsin · Jul 30, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Ally Bank v. Serge N. NgouambeCA Minnesota · Jul 27, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)P-Three Development, LLC v. Therm Flo, Inc.CA Illinois · Jun 30, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. James K. Bernard Jr.CA Illinois · Jun 26, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)