Caso No. 0000140/2025-00
TSJ Gran Canaria (Spain) · Feb 10, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- TSJ Gran Canaria (Spain)
- Record ID
- caso-no-00001402025-00-2026-02-10
- Observed outcome
- The court formed a separate disciplinary piece to address the lawyer's professional responsibility and referred the matter to the Bar Association.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court sanctioned the lawyer for gross negligence and breach of procedural good faith after he submitted a brief containing 48 AI-generated, fabricated citations. The court initiated a separate disciplinary proceeding and referred the lawyer to the Bar Association for professional misconduct.
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Referencia a una supuesta "Guía de buenas prácticas en la intervención con menores víctimas, 2018" atribuida al CGPJ: no existe constancia de tal guía ni de los datos de publicación alegados. || False Quotes: Case Law | Cita atribuida y textual a la STS 494/2020 que no contiene las palabras atribuidas en el recurso; la sentencia existe pero no incluye el pasaje citado. || False Quotes: Case Law | Cita atribuida a la STS 104/2019 que no existe en el texto de la sentencia (la STS 104/2019 trata del 'caso Caronte' y no de la credibilidad de la víctima). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Numerosas sentencias citadas con número/fecha que no coinciden o que, aunque existen, versan sobre temas distintos al alegado (ej.: STS 282/2019, STS 387/2022, STS 845/2016 entre otras). || Fabricated: Case Law | Cita inexistente o numeración que no corresponde a una sentencia con el contenido alegado (p. ej. STS 798/2022 citada con doctrina sobre destrucción de pruebas, cita inexistente en la base de datos). || Fabricated: Other | Resumen del hallazgo del informe documental: 48 de 52 citas generadas por herramienta de IA y ninguna de las notas textuales reproducidas aparece en las sentencias invocadas.
Forensic report found 48 of 52 citations AI-generated — courts will audit your entire brief when one citation fails.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Bar Referral
- Criminal
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified paid generative AI tool
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate proceeding before the TSJ Gran Canaria, with a separate disciplinary piece formed to address professional misconduct.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The lawyer admitted to using a paid generative AI tool.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Do not treat a paid legal-research product as a substitute for source verification.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.
- Set a written rule for permissible AI use and mandatory verification.