Thalita Aparecida Araújo Rosa Campos v. Marcio Abreu Rosa
TJ Rio de Janeiro · May 6, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's filings included citations to precedents attributed to state courts that the tribunal found to be nonexistent; counsel later admitted the references resulted from AI-assisted research but failed to verify them. Outcome: Monetary Fine; Bar Referral. The appellate court determined that the appellee's counsel cited non-existent state-court precedents in pleadings. The counsel admitted the citations arose from inexperience using AI research tools but the court held she had a duty to verify results and characterized the conduct as litigância de má-fé. The court imposed a 2% procedural fine on the updated value of the claim, ordered referral to the OAB-RJ for possible professional measures, and rejected the excuse of mere AI error as excusing the behavior.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and bar referral and records Monetary Fine; Bar Referral. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and bar referral with Monetary Fine; Bar Referral in TJ Rio de Janeiro. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's filings included citations to precedents attributed to state courts that the tribunal found to be nonexistent; counsel later admitted the references resulted from AI-assisted research but failed to verify them. Outcome: Monetary Fine; Bar Referral. The appellate court determined that the appellee's counsel cited non-existent state-court precedents in pleadings. The counsel admitted the citations arose from inexperience using AI research tools but the court held she had a duty to verify results and characterized the conduct as litigância de má-fé. The court imposed a 2% procedural fine on the updated value of the claim, ordered referral to the OAB-RJ for possible professional measures, and rejected the excuse of mere AI error as excusing the behavior.
This matter connects fake citations and bar referral with Monetary Fine; Bar Referral in TJ Rio de Janeiro. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Monetary Fine; Bar Referral
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's filings included citations to precedents attributed to state courts that the tribunal found to be nonexistent; counsel later admitted the references resulted from AI-assisted research but failed to verify them.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Thalita Aparecida Araújo Rosa Campos v. Marcio Abreu Rosa?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's filings included citations to precedents attributed to state courts that the tribunal found to be nonexistent; counsel later admitted the references resulted from AI-assisted research but failed to verify them. Outcome: Monetary Fine; Bar Referral. The appellate court determined that the appellee's counsel cited non-existent state-court precedents in pleadings. The counsel admitted the citations arose from inexperience using AI research tools but the court held she had a duty to verify results and characterized the conduct as litigância de má-fé. The court imposed a 2% procedural fine on the updated value of the claim, ordered referral to the OAB-RJ for possible professional measures, and rejected the excuse of mere AI error as excusing the behavior.
- Why does Thalita Aparecida Araújo Rosa Campos v. Marcio Abreu Rosa matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and bar referral with Monetary Fine; Bar Referral in TJ Rio de Janeiro. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Thalita Aparecida Araújo Rosa Campos v. Marcio Abreu Rosa?
- 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 Thalita Aparecida Araújo Rosa Campos v. Marcio Abreu Rosa 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.