AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 16, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesn.º 5207056-82.2025.8.09.0011
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

n.º 5207056-82.2025.8.09.0011

TJGO, 8ª Câmara Cível · Dec 9, 2025

BrazilEditorial impact: highfake citationsmisrepresented authoritybar referralotherMonetaryBar Referral
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant transcribed a non-existent TJGO decision, including a fabricated ementa, process number, chamber and relator; court found the jurisprudence fully fabricated. Outcome: Monetary Fine; Bar Referral.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records Monetary Fine; Bar Referral. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Monetary Fine; Bar Referral in TJGO, 8ª Câmara Cível. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant transcribed a non-existent TJGO decision, including a fabricated ementa, process number, chamber and relator; court found the jurisprudence fully fabricated. Outcome: Monetary Fine; Bar Referral.

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Monetary Fine; Bar Referral in TJGO, 8ª Câmara Cível. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtTJGO, 8ª Câmara Cível
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 9, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary Fine; Bar Referral
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

Monetary Fine; Bar Referral

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant transcribed a non-existent TJGO decision, including a fabricated ementa, process number, chamber and relator; court found the jurisprudence fully fabricated.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant relied on a real Superior Tribunal de Justiça precedent that was unrelated to adjudicação compulsória and was misapplied to support a prescrição argument.

Questions this record answers

What happened in n.º 5207056-82.2025.8.09.0011?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant transcribed a non-existent TJGO decision, including a fabricated ementa, process number, chamber and relator; court found the jurisprudence fully fabricated. Outcome: Monetary Fine; Bar Referral.
Why does n.º 5207056-82.2025.8.09.0011 matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Monetary Fine; Bar Referral in TJGO, 8ª Câmara Cível. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about n.º 5207056-82.2025.8.09.0011?
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 n.º 5207056-82.2025.8.09.0011 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.

In the matter of MachinskyMassachusetts Land Court · Aug 7, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Moore v. Aldridge Pite LLPW.D. Texas · Aug 3, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)FJL v TGOGauteng Division, Johannesburg · Jul 31, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Danielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel MaloitD. Colorado · Jul 29, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Kimberly A. Graves v. Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyE.D. California · Jul 24, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Gideon J. Sipin v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., et al.N.D. Alabama · Jul 22, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)