Ric. n. 3054/2025
TAR Lombardia · Oct 14, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- TAR Lombardia
- Record ID
- ric-n-30542025-2025-10-14
- Observed outcome
- The petition was rejected, the petitioner's counsel was ordered to pay 1,500 EUR in costs, and the court referred the attorney to the Milan Bar Association for disciplinary evaluation.
- Known monetary consequence
- €1,500
Why this matter warrants attention
The TAR Lombardia rejected a petition and sanctioned the petitioner's counsel for submitting fabricated case law generated by AI. The court ordered the attorney to pay 1,500 EUR in costs and referred the conduct to the Milan Bar Association, ruling that AI usage does not absolve counsel of the duty to verify all legal citations.
The court reasoned that the attorney's submission of fabricated citations violated the duty of loyalty and probity (Art. 88 c.p.c. and Art. 39 c.p.a.). It held that the attorney's signature on a filing creates non-delegable responsibility for its contents, regardless of whether AI tools were used. The court emphasized that counsel has an affirmative duty to verify AI-generated research to prevent the introduction of non-existent or irrelevant authorities into the judicial process.
Italian TARs now refer AI-hallucinating counsel to the bar — 1,500 EUR costs are the smaller half of the penalty.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Trial
- Monetary
- Bar Referral
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- €1,500
- Procedural posture
- Final judgment on a petition for annulment of a school board decision, decided in a simplified form under Article 60 of the Code of Administrative Procedure.
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 attorney admitted to using AI tools, but the specific tool was not named.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all AI-generated legal research before inclusion in court filings.
- Ensure that all cited case law is cross-referenced against official judicial databases to confirm existence and relevance.
- Establish internal review procedures where a human attorney signs off on the accuracy of all citations, acknowledging personal responsibility for the filing.