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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Rodney Chagas v. Fabricio Petinelli Vieira Coutinho
Parana State · Jun 9, 2025
BrazilEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsmisrepresented authorityadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
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.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary fine (1% of case value); the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- 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)
Operational lesson
Brazilian appellate fined lawyer 1% of case value for AI-fabricated jurisprudence; trust principle does not excuse gross error.
Record details
CourtParana State
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJun 9, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary fine (1% of case value)
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Monetary fine (1% of case value)
Correction behavior
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?
- 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.…
- 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.