Nº 1500026-62.2023.8.26.0633/50000
TJ San Paulo · Mar 10, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- TJ San Paulo
- Record ID
- no-1500026-62-2023-8-26-0633-50000-2026-03-10
- Observed outcome
- Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Criminal
- Trial
- Monetary
- Professional
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine
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
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.