Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025
T.S.X. Galicia · Jul 7, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- T.S.X. Galicia
- Record ID
- recurso-de-suplicacion-0005472-2025-2026-07-07
- Observed outcome
- The court imposed a 1,800 EUR fine and referred the lawyer to the A Coruña Bar Association for disciplinary proceedings.
- Known monetary consequence
- €1,800
Why this matter warrants attention
The T.S.X. Galicia sanctioned a lawyer with a 1,800 EUR fine and a referral to the Bar Association for submitting a brief containing 24 fabricated citations generated by an unverified AI tool. The court held that the lawyer failed in their duty of human oversight and professional diligence required by Spanish procedural and deontological standards.
The court reasoned that the lawyer breached the duty of procedural good faith and professional diligence by failing to verify AI-generated citations. It determined the fine amount by benchmarking it against the annual cost of professional legal AI tools, concluding that such tools would have prevented the hallucinations. The court also considered the lawyer's admission of fault and lack of prior disciplinary history as mitigating factors in setting the fine at the lower end of the statutory range.
This case establishes a clear precedent for judicial sanctioning of AI-driven 'hallucinations' in Spain. It highlights that courts may use the cost of professional AI tools as a benchmark for fines, emphasizing that the failure to verify AI output constitutes a breach of professional duty.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Bar Referral
- Administrative
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- €1,800
- Procedural posture
- The court issued an 'Auto' (order) in a separate piece of litigation (pieza separada) following the discovery of fabricated citations in a Recurso de Suplicación.
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
The court identified the use of generative AI for drafting the brief.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.