Sanction teardown · CSJ, Colombia · 2026-02-13
AC739-2026
What happened
In CSJ, Colombia, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
-
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)The filing attributed specific numbered causes to Article 250 CGP (numerals 5 and 7) though Article 250 concerns documentary probative indivisibility and has no such numerals; court found the attribution false.
-
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)In the subsanation the lawyer cited Article 355.7 and 355.8 with texts that do not correspond to the authentic wording of those numerals; court found the content altered to fit the argument.
-
Misrepresented (Case Law)Two Constitutional Court decisions were cited with content materially different from their true subject matter (false attribution); court found the attributions incorrect.
Which AI tool
an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.
Outcome
Temeridad declaration; monetary fine; bar referral (monetary penalty: 1 .)
How Citation Safe would have caught this
Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.
Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate
Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1526/SANCION_ABOGADO_IA.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).