Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025
T.S.X. Galicia · Jul 7, 2026
SpainEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesbar referraladministrative
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found quoted material attributed to SSTC 60/2008 was fabricated and not present in that ruling. Outcome: Bar Referral. Earlier decision noticing the issues here.In an innovative approach, the court set the fine amount by reference to the annual cost of a verified legal AI tool (citing products such as Sof-IA by Tirant lo Blanch, GenIA-L by Lefebvre, Harvey AI, and others), reasoning that the use of such a tool would have eliminated or drastically reduced the risk of hallucination
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Bar Referral; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Bar Referral in T.S.X. Galicia, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found quoted material attributed to SSTC 60/2008 was fabricated and not present in that ruling. Outcome: Bar Referral. Earlier decision noticing the issues here.In an innovative approach, the court set the fine amount by reference to the annual cost of a verified legal AI tool (citing products such as Sof-IA by Tirant lo Blanch, GenIA-L by Lefebvre, Harvey AI, and others), reasoning that the use of such a tool would have eliminated or drastically reduced the risk of hallucination
Operational lesson
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Bar Referral in T.S.X. Galicia, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CourtT.S.X. Galicia
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJul 7, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeBar Referral
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionYes
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
Bar Referral
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found quoted material attributed to SSTC 60/2008 was fabricated and not present in that ruling.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Passages attributed to STS 459/2022 were identified as invented and do not correspond to any paragraph of that decision.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Citation STS 23/03/21 R. 2341/19 was found not to exist (apocryphal resource number) though quoted in the brief.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified the quoted excerpt attributed to STS 12/04/19 R. 4123/17 as a false quotation (does not match the ATS referenced).
- Fabricated: Case Law | The brief attributed a passage to the STJUE C-127/2019 that does not appear in that preliminary‑reference file; court found the quotation invented.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court determined quoted passages attributed to SSTC 142/2015 were invented and do not appear in that decision.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found quoted material attributed to SSTC 60/2008 was fabricated and not present in that ruling. Outcome: Bar Referral. Earlier decision noticing the issues here.In an innovative approach, the court set the fine amount by reference to the annual cost of a verified legal AI tool (citing products such as Sof-IA by Tirant lo Blanch, GenIA-L by Lefebvre, Harvey AI, and others), reasoning that the use of such a tool would have eliminated or drastically reduced the risk of hallucination
- Why does Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025 matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Bar Referral in T.S.X. Galicia, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025?
- 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 Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025 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.