Disciplinary proceeding - Rol N°23.322-2025
Corte Suprema, Tercera Sala · Apr 22, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Corte Suprema, Tercera Sala
- Record ID
- disciplinary-proceeding-rol-n-23-322-2025-2026-04-22
- Observed outcome
- One-month suspension from practice and a fine of 5 monthly tax units (UTM).
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Bar Referral
- Trial
- Monetary
- Professional
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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 context of fabricated citations implies the use of AI tools.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.