AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesEzequiel Cunha de Moura e outro v. Wallace de Moura Silva
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

Ezequiel Cunha de Moura e outro v. Wallace de Moura Silva

TJ Rio de Janeiro · Mar 30, 2026

BrazilEditorial impact: highfake citationsbar referralcontracttrialBar Referral
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action and ordered a referral to the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB-RJ) after determining that the attorney submitted fabricated case law, which the court identified as an AI hallucination intended to mislead the tribunal.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that the petition was procedurally inept for failing to provide an analytical description of the cause of action. Regarding the fabricated citation, the court determined that the attorney attempted to induce the tribunal into error by presenting a non-existent acórdão, which the court explicitly identified as an AI hallucination.
Why it matters now
Brazilian courts now refer attorneys to the OAB for fabricated citations; citation verification is not optional.

Why this matter is tracked

In an Ação Rescisória, the TJ-RJ court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action. During review, the court identified that the plaintiff's counsel cited a non-existent STJ acórdão (1654321) to support their arguments. The court verified that the cited number corresponded to an unrelated case from Minas Gerais (REsp 1.654.321/MG) and a monocratic decision from Pernambuco (AREsp 1654321), neither of which matched the content or jurisdiction presented by the counsel. The court characterized the error as an 'AI hallucination' intended to mislead the judiciary. Consequently, the court ordered the dismissal of the case and mandated the referral of the attorney to the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB-RJ) for potential disciplinary action.

Operational lesson

Brazilian courts now refer attorneys to the OAB for fabricated citations; citation verification is not optional.

Record details

CourtTJ Rio de Janeiro
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMar 30, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe petition was dismissed without resolution of the merits, and the court ordered a referral to the OAB-RJ for disciplinary review.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionReferral to the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB-RJ) for investigation.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The court explicitly identified the error as an AI hallucination.

Procedural posture

Ação Rescisória dismissed without resolution of the merits due to an inept initial petition.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Petition cited an STJ acórdão by number (1654321) and reproduced a passage; court research showed no matching RJ acórdão and identified REsp 1.654.321/MG (and AREsp 1654321 of different origin), concluding the cited passage/acórdão does not exist as presented.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ezequiel Cunha de Moura e outro v. Wallace de Moura Silva?
The court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action and ordered a referral to the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB-RJ) after determining that the attorney submitted fabricated case law, which the court identified as an AI hallucination intended to mislead the tribunal.
Why does Ezequiel Cunha de Moura e outro v. Wallace de Moura Silva matter for legal AI risk?
Brazilian courts now refer attorneys to the OAB for fabricated citations; citation verification is not optional.
What does the public record establish about Ezequiel Cunha de Moura e outro v. Wallace de Moura Silva?
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 Ezequiel Cunha de Moura e outro v. Wallace de Moura Silva 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.

Thalita Aparecida Araújo Rosa Campos v. Marcio Abreu RosaTJ Rio de Janeiro · May 6, 2026same court · fake citations + bar referralAmanda Jacintha de Souza v. Atual Companhia Securitizadora de Créditos FinanceirosTJ Rio de Janeiro · Feb 24, 2026same court · fake citations + bar referralLuiz Carlos Barboza Neves v. Banco Bradesco S.A.TJ Rio de Janeiro · Feb 23, 2026same court · fake citations + trialKrista C. Geddes v. LoanCare, LLC, et al.E.D. California · Apr 22, 2026fake citations + bar referral · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Nº 0104033-49.2025.8.16.0000TJ Parana · Apr 8, 2026fake citations + bar referral · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al.S.D. Indiana · Feb 12, 2026fake citations + bar referral · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)