Fernando Betancourt Gómez v. Colegio de Profesionales
Puerto Rico · Aug 22, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- Puerto Rico
- Record ID
- fernando-betancourt-gómez-v-colegio-de-profesionales-2025-08-22
- Observed outcome
- The court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction, referred the attorneys to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court for disciplinary evaluation, and recused itself from all cases involving the attorneys, ordering the case reassigned.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The court sanctioned two attorneys $1,000 for filing a motion containing multiple fabricated case citations and quotes. The judge determined the attorneys failed to exercise necessary diligence in verifying AI-generated or internet-sourced legal research, referred them to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court for disciplinary review, and recused herself from all matters involving the counsel.
The court reasoned that while technology is useful, attorneys have an ethical duty under the Code of Professional Ethics to verify the accuracy of all legal research. The court found that the attorneys' failure to check the existence of cited cases and quotes constituted a lack of diligence and candor, causing unjustified delay and wasting judicial resources.
Spanish-language and local-jurisdiction citations require the same verification rigor as federal reporters; assign a shepardizing step.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Bar Referral
- Employment
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified AI tools and internet search engines
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,000
- Procedural posture
- Trial court resolution regarding a motion to dismiss and subsequent motions for sanctions.
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 attorneys referenced internet search engines and AI tools as the source of the errors.
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.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.