Thalita Aparecida Araújo Rosa Campos v. Marcio Abreu Rosa
TJ Rio de Janeiro · May 6, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- TJ Rio de Janeiro
- Record ID
- thalita-aparecida-araujo-rosa-campos-v-marcio-abreu-rosa-2026-05-06
- Observed outcome
- Monetary Fine; Bar Referral
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Bar Referral
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- Professional
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Monetary Fine; Bar Referral
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 current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
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.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.