Rodney Chagas v. Fabricio Petinelli Vieira Coutinho
Parana State · Jun 9, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court sanctioned the appellant lawyer for litigation in bad faith after he submitted AI-generated, nonexistent jurisprudence to support his appeal. The court imposed a monetary fine equivalent to 1% of the case value, citing the lawyer's reckless conduct and failure to uphold the duty of good faith required of legal practitioners.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the appellant's submission of nonexistent jurisprudence constituted a reckless attempt to mislead the judiciary. It emphasized that the principle of trust in legal proceedings requires parties to act in accordance with valid rules. The court rejected the appellant's claim of error, characterizing the conduct as inexcusable gross negligence and serious misconduct, thereby justifying a sanction for bad faith litigation under Articles 80(V) and 81 of the CPC.
- Why it matters now
- Brazilian appellate fined lawyer 1% of case value for AI-fabricated jurisprudence; trust principle does not excuse gross error.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited jurisprudences that could not be located and were deemed nonexistent, suspected as AI-generated. Outcome: Monetary fine (1% of case value). In this rebuttal, the lawyer cited jurisprudence that the presiding judge (Relator) found to be "impressively so delineated and harmonious with the case". This prompted the judge to investigate the precedent more closely. He discovered that while the case number indicated was real, it belonged to a completely different case unrelated to the legal matter being discussed, leading to the suspicion of an AI "hallucination.The court concluded:"It is totally inconceivable to imagine that the Judiciary, already so burdened with countless lawsuits, needs to investigate all the case law set forth in the legal grounds reported by the parties in the procedural documents, despite the duty to act in good faith set forth in Article 5 of the CPC. After all, it is entirely based on the principle of trust expectation that all subjects act in accordance with existing and valid rules.Thus, even if the appellant claims that such conduct was the result of an error, a claim that has not been satisfactorily proven, but which is taken as a premise for the purposes of argumentation, in the present case, it would be, at the very least, an inexcusable, gross error resulting from serious misconduct, ruling out the possibility of proceeding without any implications in this judicial field, so as not to allow any hesitation in considering the aforementioned conduct as being clearly litigious in bad faith.Thus, as a result of having acted in a manifestly reckless manner (Art. 80, V of the CPC), I condemn the appellant for litigation in bad faith, and he must pay the fine set at 1% of the value of the case (Art. 81 of the CPC), in accordance with the grounds"Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Brazilian appellate fined lawyer 1% of case value for AI-fabricated jurisprudence; trust principle does not excuse gross error.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court refers to the jurisprudence as created by artificial intelligence, but does not name a specific tool.
Appellate review of a lower court decision denying an extrajudicial usucapio claim; the sanction for bad faith litigation was issued by the 18th Civil Chamber of the Parana State Court of Justice.
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 | Appellant cited jurisprudences that could not be located and were deemed nonexistent, suspected as AI-generated.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant referenced a real STJ REsp number but misattributed it to a thesis perfectly aligned with the case; court found the cited REsp dealt with a completely different matter.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Rodney Chagas v. Fabricio Petinelli Vieira Coutinho?
- The court sanctioned the appellant lawyer for litigation in bad faith after he submitted AI-generated, nonexistent jurisprudence to support his appeal. The court imposed a monetary fine equivalent to 1% of the case value, citing the lawyer's reckless conduct and failure to uphold the duty of good faith required of legal practitioners.
- Why does Rodney Chagas v. Fabricio Petinelli Vieira Coutinho matter for legal AI risk?
- Brazilian appellate fined lawyer 1% of case value for AI-fabricated jurisprudence; trust principle does not excuse gross error.
- What does the public record establish about Rodney Chagas v. Fabricio Petinelli Vieira Coutinho?
- 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 Rodney Chagas v. Fabricio Petinelli Vieira Coutinho 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.