Nº 1500026-62.2023.8.26.0633/50000
TJ San Paulo · Mar 10, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellate brief cited multiple purportedly binding decisions (attributed to this Relator, to other TJSP panels, STF and STJ) that could not be located and were found to be AI-generated. Outcome: Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine. The court found that the defense's brief contained jurisprudence that did not exist and that the cited 'decisions' were generated by a generative AI tool (no specific tool named). The court relied on formatting, absence of relator/organ/judge/process numbers, and presence of template placeholders (e.g. "[indicar páginas do interrogatório]") to conclude the pieces were AI-produced. It held this conduct as abusive and constituting litigância de má-fé, applied formal censure and a fine (amount unspecified), and emphasized the duty to verify sources and the inadmissibility of relying on AI-generated, unverifiable jurisprudence.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine in TJ San Paulo. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellate brief cited multiple purportedly binding decisions (attributed to this Relator, to other TJSP panels, STF and STJ) that could not be located and were found to be AI-generated. Outcome: Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine. The court found that the defense's brief contained jurisprudence that did not exist and that the cited 'decisions' were generated by a generative AI tool (no specific tool named). The court relied on formatting, absence of relator/organ/judge/process numbers, and presence of template placeholders (e.g. "[indicar páginas do interrogatório]") to conclude the pieces were AI-produced. It held this conduct as abusive and constituting litigância de má-fé, applied formal censure and a fine (amount unspecified), and emphasized the duty to verify sources and the inadmissibility of relying on AI-generated, unverifiable jurisprudence.
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine in TJ San Paulo. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellate brief cited multiple purportedly binding decisions (attributed to this Relator, to other TJSP panels, STF and STJ) that could not be located and were found to be AI-generated.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | The petition itself showed signs of having been produced by a generative AI (retained template text like "[indicar páginas do interrogatório]").
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Nº 1500026-62.2023.8.26.0633/50000?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellate brief cited multiple purportedly binding decisions (attributed to this Relator, to other TJSP panels, STF and STJ) that could not be located and were found to be AI-generated. Outcome: Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine. The court found that the defense's brief contained jurisprudence that did not exist and that the cited 'decisions' were generated by a generative AI tool (no specific tool named). The court relied on formatting, absence of relator/organ/judge/process numbers, and presence of template placeholders (e.g. "[indicar páginas do interrogatório]") to conclude the pieces were AI-produced. It held this conduct as abusive and constituting litigância de má-fé, applied formal censure and a fine (amount unspecified), and emphasized the duty to verify sources and the inadmissibility of relying on AI-generated, unverifiable jurisprudence.
- Why does Nº 1500026-62.2023.8.26.0633/50000 matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine in TJ San Paulo. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Nº 1500026-62.2023.8.26.0633/50000?
- 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 Nº 1500026-62.2023.8.26.0633/50000 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.