Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1PGZ2YMGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Unnamed Brazilian litigant

6th Civil Chamber, Court of Justice of Santa Catarina · Feb 18, 2025

Jurisdiction
international
Court
6th Civil Chamber, Court of Justice of Santa Catarina
Record ID
unnamed-brazilian-litigant-2025-02-18
Observed outcome
Appeal partially granted (reintegration suspended, rent imposed), but litigant sanctioned for bad-faith litigation; 10% fine on the updated value of the case; copy of filing sent to OAB-SC for disciplinary review
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

Outcome: Appeal partially granted (reintegration suspended, rent imposed), but litigant sanctioned for bad-faith litigation; 10% fine on the updated value of the case; copy of filing sent to OAB-SC for disciplinary review.

Why the decision-maker cared

The court emphasized that the legal profession is a public calling entailing duties and responsibilities. It cautioned that AI must be used “with caution and restraint”. The chamber unanimously supported the sanction

Why it matters now

Brazilian appellate courts now send fabricated-citation filings to the OAB as bad-faith litigation — 'unintentional' ChatGPT use is no defense.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Bar Referral
  • Trial
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Reported
Recorded tool
ChatGPT
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Appeal partially granted (reintegration suspended, rent imposed), but litigant sanctioned for bad-faith litigation; 10% fine on the updated value of the case; copy of filing sent to OAB-SC for disciplinary review
PRIMARY SOURCE

tjsc.jus.br

Secondary or other linked source. The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Latest evidence review: Metadata Only (medium confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Apply the same source-checking controls to ChatGPT output as to any other research input.
  2. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.