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
HomeCasesLuiz Carlos Barboza Neves v. Banco Bradesco S.A.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Luiz Carlos Barboza Neves v. Banco Bradesco S.A.

TJ Rio de Janeiro · Feb 23, 2026

BrazilEditorial impact: lowfake citationsothertrialMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appeal cited a TJSP decision with a partially redacted/fictional number and date to support non-liability for costs; court found the precedential citation inexistent and unverifiable. Outcome: Court found the cited precedents nonexistent, treated the conduct as a serious professional fault but—because the attorney admitted the error—declined to impose sanctions for litigância de má-fé or to refer the matter administratively; underlying sentence (payment of court costs) was upheld..

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies fake citations and other and records Court found the cited precedents nonexistent, treated the conduct as a serious professional fault but—because the attorney admitted the error—declined to impose sanctions for litigância de má-fé or to refer the matter administratively; underlying sentence (payment of court costs) was upheld.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects fake citations and other with Court found the cited precedents nonexistent, treated the conduct as a serious professional fault but—because the attorney admitted the error—declined to impose sanctions for litigância de má-fé or to refer the matter administratively; underlying sentence (payment of court costs) was upheld. in TJ Rio de Janeiro. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appeal cited a TJSP decision with a partially redacted/fictional number and date to support non-liability for costs; court found the precedential citation inexistent and unverifiable. Outcome: Court found the cited precedents nonexistent, treated the conduct as a serious professional fault but—because the attorney admitted the error—declined to impose sanctions for litigância de má-fé or to refer the matter administratively; underlying sentence (payment of court costs) was upheld..

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and other with Court found the cited precedents nonexistent, treated the conduct as a serious professional fault but—because the attorney admitted the error—declined to impose sanctions for litigância de má-fé or to refer the matter administratively; underlying sentence (payment of court costs) was upheld. in TJ Rio de Janeiro. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtTJ Rio de Janeiro
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateFeb 23, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeCourt found the cited precedents nonexistent, treated the conduct as a serious professional fault but—because the attorney admitted the error—declined to impose sanctions for litigância de má-fé or to refer the matter administratively; underlying sentence (payment of court costs) was upheld.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Court found the cited precedents nonexistent, treated the conduct as a serious professional fault but—because the attorney admitted the error—declined to impose sanctions for litigância de má-fé or to refer the matter administratively; underlying sentence (payment of court costs) was upheld.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appeal cited a TJSP decision with a partially redacted/fictional number and date to support non-liability for costs; court found the precedential citation inexistent and unverifiable.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Appeal cited a TJMG decision with generic numbering and an unnamed relator; court determined the citation lacked adequate identification and was not verifiable.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Appeal cited a TJRS decision with a partially redacted/fictional number to support the thesis exempting parties from costs; court found the precedent citation was indeterminate and likely fabricated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Luiz Carlos Barboza Neves v. Banco Bradesco S.A.?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appeal cited a TJSP decision with a partially redacted/fictional number and date to support non-liability for costs; court found the precedential citation inexistent and unverifiable. Outcome: Court found the cited precedents nonexistent, treated the conduct as a serious professional fault but—because the attorney admitted the error—declined to impose sanctions for litigância de má-fé or to refer the matter administratively; underlying sentence (payment of court costs) was upheld..
Why does Luiz Carlos Barboza Neves v. Banco Bradesco S.A. matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects fake citations and other with Court found the cited precedents nonexistent, treated the conduct as a serious professional fault but—because the attorney admitted the error—declined to impose sanctions for litigância de má-fé or to refer the matter administratively; underlying sentence (payment of court costs) was upheld. in TJ Rio de Janeiro. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Luiz Carlos Barboza Neves v. Banco Bradesco S.A.?
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 Luiz Carlos Barboza Neves v. Banco Bradesco S.A. 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.

Amanda Jacintha de Souza v. Atual Companhia Securitizadora de Créditos FinanceirosTJ Rio de Janeiro · Feb 24, 2026same court · fake citations + otherEzequiel Cunha de Moura e outro v. Wallace de Moura SilvaTJ Rio de Janeiro · Mar 30, 2026same court · fake citations + trialThalita Aparecida Araújo Rosa Campos v. Marcio Abreu RosaTJ Rio de Janeiro · May 6, 2026same court · fake citations + trialRose v. Arts Bonita, Inc.M.D. Florida · Aug 12, 2026fake citations + other · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Anish Sam Mathew v. Parv VermaE.D. Michigan · Aug 10, 2026fake citations + other · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Stephen J. Palumbo and Lori A. Palumbo v. Gregory M. PalumboDelaware Ch. · Aug 10, 2026fake citations + other · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)