Jamisson Roriz de Santana Andrade v. Tribunal Superior do Trabalho
Supremo Tribunal Federal · May 12, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The STF dismissed the complaint as manifestly inadmissible, sanctioned the claimant for bad faith litigation by ordering payment of double the initial court costs, and referred the counsel to the OAB for investigation into potential violations of the Statute of Advocacy due to the submission of AI-generated filings containing fabricated legal authorities.
- Why the court cared
- The Court reasoned that the petition was 'manifestly inadmissible' because the cited precedents were either non-existent or misrepresented. The Relator noted that the 'Criado com MobiOffice' watermark, combined with the presence of fabricated citations and false summaries of Súmula Vinculante 6, evidenced that the counsel used AI to draft the petition without any subsequent human review, constituting reckless conduct and bad faith under Article 80, V, of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code.
- Why it matters now
- MobiOffice and similar built-in AI assistants require the same verification discipline as ChatGPT—courts treat watermarks as admission.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited RE 328.111/DF as precedent allegedly violated; the Court stated it could not locate such decision. Outcome: Case summarily dismissed; Counsel referred to the Bar Association; Claimant ordered to pay double the costs.
AI Use
The petition’s pages were marked “Criado com MobiOffice.” The STF verified that MobiOffice includes a built-in AI writing assistant. Combined with the inclusion of fictitious citations, this led the Court to conclude that AI had been used and not reviewed. The judge characterized this as reckless conduct.
Hallucination Details
Claimed violations of STF precedents including RE 464.867/SP and RE 226.855/RS, which were either inapplicable or misrepresentedClaimed Súmula Vinculante 6 said something entirely false (its actual content concerns military service remuneration)Cited judgments ARE 1.218.084 AgR and RE 328.111/DF as relevant when they were either misquoted or irrelevantCourt concluded these references were invented or misrepresented, “false statements intended to mislead”
Ruling/Sanction
Rejected the complaint as manifestly inadmissibleFound that counsel likely used AI and submitted the petition without reviewOrdered notification to both the national and Bahia sections of the OABDeclared the petitioner litigated in bad faith under Article 80, V, of the Brazilian Civil Procedure CodeImposed a procedural penalty of double the initial court costsOrdered referral to dívida ativa (federal collections) if not paid.
MobiOffice and similar built-in AI assistants require the same verification discipline as ChatGPT—courts treat watermarks as admission.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The Court identified the 'Criado com MobiOffice' watermark and confirmed the tool's AI capabilities.
Summary dismissal of a constitutional complaint (Reclamação) by the Relator.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited RE 328.111/DF as precedent allegedly violated; the Court stated it could not locate such decision.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited ARE 1.218.084 AgR as precedent allegedly violated; the Court stated it could not locate such decision.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited RE 464.867/SP as precedent allegedly violated; the Court stated it could not locate such decision.
- False Quotes: Legal Norm | Petitioner attributed to SV 6 a rule on penal acquittal barring administrative sanction; the Court said SV 6 actually concerns pay for initial military service.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioner invoked RE 226.855/RS as supporting penal absolution’s binding effects; the Court clarified the case addressed FGTS monetary correction from economic plans, unrelated to the issue.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Jamisson Roriz de Santana Andrade v. Tribunal Superior do Trabalho?
- The STF dismissed the complaint as manifestly inadmissible, sanctioned the claimant for bad faith litigation by ordering payment of double the initial court costs, and referred the counsel to the OAB for investigation into potential violations of the Statute of Advocacy due to the submission of AI-generated filings containing fabricated legal authorities.
- Why does Jamisson Roriz de Santana Andrade v. Tribunal Superior do Trabalho matter for legal AI risk?
- MobiOffice and similar built-in AI assistants require the same verification discipline as ChatGPT—courts treat watermarks as admission.
- What does the public record establish about Jamisson Roriz de Santana Andrade v. Tribunal Superior do Trabalho?
- 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 Jamisson Roriz de Santana Andrade v. Tribunal Superior do Trabalho 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.