This week in legal AI — Brazil

5 updates on the record, 2025-07-17 to 2026-09-05.

• Incident · Brazil · 2026-08-13
  Apelacao Civel 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224 (TJSP, 36a Camara de Direito Privado)
  The Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo, deciding a defective-car consumer appeal, found the plaintiff's lawyer had used AI without critical review to cite fabricated precedents. Treating this as bad-faith litigation, it imposed a fine of 2 percent of the value of the claim and sent the ruling to the Sao Paulo and Federal bar councils.
  Primary source: TJSP, Apelacao Civel 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224, Registro 2026.0000779792 (13 Aug 2026), acordao (Charlotin database archive PDF)
• Incident · Brazil · unverified · 2026-08-03
  Processo 0001601-72.2025.5.20.0005 (TRT-20, 1a Turma, Sergipe)
  A panel of the Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 20a Regiao in Sergipe, Brazil, fined a company 5 percent of the claim value for bad-faith litigation after its lawyer's AI-drafted appeal cited invented precedents, including a 2015 ministerial vote discussing PIX, a payment system created in 2020. The court forwarded the file to the Brazilian Bar for ethics review.
  Primary source: Sergipe Noticias, August 2026 (press report; primary decision not located)
• Incident · Brazil · 2026-07-22
  Apelacao Civel 0035599-44.2017.8.16.0014 (TJPR)
  A judge of the Tribunal de Justica do Parana in Brazil refused to hear a consumer appeal whose brief relied on what the decision called creative jurisprudence produced by AI, including an unlocatable Santa Catarina precedent and an unverifiable headnote. The appeal was not admitted for lack of dialecticity and the state bar was notified for professional measures.
  Primary source: TJPR, Apelacao Civel 0035599-44.2017.8.16.0014 (22 Jul 2026), monocratic decision (Charlotin database archive PDF)
• Incident · Brazil · 2025-09-08
  Processo nº 1001467-35.2024.5.02.0467 (TRT-2, 4ª Turma)
  In Brazil, the TRT-2 labour appeals court in São Paulo sanctioned a worker's lawyer for bad-faith litigation after an appeal cited AI-fabricated jurisprudence falsely attributed to Superior Labour Court ministers and a non-existent judge. The court imposed a 5% penalty on the claim value, holding counsel — not the AI — responsible for verifying citations.
  Primary source: Processo nº 1001467-35.2024.5.02.0467 (TRT-2 4ª Turma), acórdão PDF via Migalhas
• Rule · CAM-CCBC · 2025-07-17
  Orientacao Administrativa no 07/2025: Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Arbitrations
  Guidance for arbitrations administered by CAM-CCBC: all participants must understand AI tools and their limits; AI use must respect confidentiality; party representatives are responsible for the factual and legal accuracy of AI-assisted work; disclosure is not required as a general rule but should be discussed case by case; and arbitrators may not delegate decision-making to AI.
  Primary source: CAM-CCBC — Original

Source: SafeLegalAI (safelegalai.com), published by Cognesio LLP. Data CC BY 4.0. Scope: Brazil. As of 2026-09-05. Records: safelegalai.com/tracker/brazil · Feed: RSS