Giacomino y Otros v. Montserrat y Otros
Rosario CA · Aug 22, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Rosario CA
- Record ID
- giacomino-y-otros-v-montserrat-y-otros-2025-08-22
- Observed outcome
- Referral of the issue to the Bar
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
In Giacomino y Otros v. Montserrat y Otros, the Rosario Civil and Commercial Court of Appeal considered appeals arising from a failed extrajudicial settlement in a damages action. The claimant’s lawyer had used two favorable authorities in an appellate response, but withdrew them after being asked to identify their source: the citations came from an AI system and could not be found. The court said even good-faith use of a generative chatbot did not excuse the lawyer’s duty to verify sources, noting that one supposed precedent was attributed to the same appellate chamber.…
The court distinguished the merits of the settlement appeal from counsel’s citation lapse, but held that no client consent or good faith can relieve a lawyer of the duty to check the sources used to support legal arguments.
The decision treats verification as a nondelegable professional duty, even where counsel says the erroneous AI output was used in good faith.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- Bar Referral
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Referral of the issue to the Bar
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 current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Spanish-language appellate decision. The court found and addressed unchecked AI-supplied citations; it issued a warning and Bar notification, not a separate disciplinary sanction in this judgment.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify every AI-suggested precedent against the actual decision before filing.
- Withdrawn citations should be replaced only within the applicable procedural deadline.
- Treat attribution to a chatbot as an explanation, not a defense to an unverified filing.