Ezequiel Cunha de Moura e outro v. Wallace de Moura Silva
TJ Rio de Janeiro · Mar 30, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- TJ Rio de Janeiro
- Record ID
- ezequiel-cunha-de-moura-e-outro-v-wallace-de-moura-silva-2026-03-30
- Observed outcome
- The petition was dismissed without resolution of the merits, and the court ordered a referral to the OAB-RJ for disciplinary review.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Brazilian courts now refer attorneys to the OAB for fabricated citations; citation verification is not optional.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Bar Referral
- Contract
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Ação Rescisória dismissed without resolution of the merits due to an inept initial petition.
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 court explicitly identified the error as an AI hallucination.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all case law citations generated by AI tools.
- Cross-reference citation numbers against official court databases to ensure the document exists and matches the cited jurisdiction.
- Establish internal review procedures for all filings to detect potential hallucinations before submission to the court.
- Ensure that legal staff are trained on the risks of AI-generated content in legal research.