Rodney Chagas v. Fabricio Petinelli Vieira Coutinho
Parana State · Jun 9, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Parana State
- Record ID
- rodney-chagas-v-fabricio-petinelli-vieira-coutinho-2025-06-09
- Observed outcome
- The appeal was denied, and the appellant was sanctioned with a monetary fine of 1% of the case value for litigation in bad faith.
- Known monetary consequence
- R$1
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Brazilian appellate fined lawyer 1% of case value for AI-fabricated jurisprudence; trust principle does not excuse gross error.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- R$1
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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 refers to the jurisprudence as created by artificial intelligence, but does not name a specific tool.
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 case law citations, regardless of the drafting tool used.
- Maintain an audit trail of legal research sources to ensure accountability for cited authorities.
- Conduct internal reviews of AI-generated drafts to identify and excise hallucinated precedents before filing.
- Ensure that all legal arguments are supported by verifiable, existing judicial decisions.