Disciplinary proceeding - Rol N°23.322-2025
Corte Suprema, Tercera Sala · Apr 22, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Chilean Supreme Court suspended an attorney for one month and imposed a fine of 5 monthly tax units (UTM) after she submitted fabricated doctrinal citations in a court filing. The Court rejected the attorney's 'involuntary error' defense, finding she breached her professional duty to verify the accuracy of information submitted to the tribunal.
- Why the court cared
- The Court reasoned that good faith requires lawyers to verify the accuracy of all information provided to the tribunal. It held that the attorney's failure to verify the existence of the cited doctrinal works constituted a lack of professionalism and a breach of the duty of rectitude, regardless of whether the error was intentional.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates the high risk of using unverified AI-generated citations in formal court filings. It establishes that 'involuntary error' is not a sufficient defense for failing to verify the existence of legal authorities, resulting in professional sanctions.
Why this matter is tracked
The Chilean Supreme Court (Tercera Sala) sanctioned attorney Daniela Beatriz Escobedo Acosta for submitting a cassation appeal containing fabricated doctrinal citations. The lawyer cited works by Juan Andrés Orrego Acuña and Jean Pierre Matus that could not be verified. When challenged, the attorney claimed the inaccuracies were unintentional transcription errors. The Court rejected this defense, ruling that the attorney failed in her fundamental duty to verify the accuracy of information presented to the tribunal. The Court characterized the conduct as a lack of professionalism contrary to the good faith required in judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Court imposed a one-month suspension from practice and a fine of 5 monthly tax units (UTM).
This case illustrates the high risk of using unverified AI-generated citations in formal court filings. It establishes that 'involuntary error' is not a sufficient defense for failing to verify the existence of legal authorities, resulting in professional sanctions.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The context of fabricated citations implies the use of AI tools.
Disciplinary proceeding initiated by the opposing party under Article 540 of the Organic Code of Tribunals, resulting in a final disciplinary sanction by the Supreme Court.
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: Doctrinal Work | First citation attributed to Jean Pierre Matus (one of the judges ...) in 'Responsabilidad Civil y Consumo, 2021' was doubted as authentic and formed part of the basis for the disciplinary complaint.
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Citation attributed to Juan Andrés Orrego Acuña as contained in 'Tratado de Protección al Consumidor, 2023' was questioned for authenticity; court found inaccurate sourcing and rejected the lawyer's 'involuntary error' defense.
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Second citation attributed to Jean Pierre Matus in 'Responsabilidad Civil y Consumo, 2021' was likewise questioned for authenticity and contributed to the finding of unprofessional conduct.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Disciplinary proceeding - Rol N°23.322-2025?
- The Chilean Supreme Court suspended an attorney for one month and imposed a fine of 5 monthly tax units (UTM) after she submitted fabricated doctrinal citations in a court filing. The Court rejected the attorney's 'involuntary error' defense, finding she breached her professional duty to verify the accuracy of information submitted to the tribunal.
- Why does Disciplinary proceeding - Rol N°23.322-2025 matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates the high risk of using unverified AI-generated citations in formal court filings. It establishes that 'involuntary error' is not a sufficient defense for failing to verify the existence of legal authorities, resulting in professional sanctions.
- What does the public record establish about Disciplinary proceeding - Rol N°23.322-2025?
- 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 Disciplinary proceeding - Rol N°23.322-2025 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.