Apelacao Civel 0035599-44.2017.8.16.0014 (TJPR)
·Tribunal de Justica do Parana (monocratic decision)·BRDismissal
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.
- Court
- Tribunal de Justica do Parana (monocratic decision)
- Date
- 2026-07-22
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Appellant's counsel reproduced an unverifiable headnote (ementa) and cited a Santa Catarina precedent (ApCv 2003.001444-6) that could not be located and was likely invented, which the judge attributed to the use of AI producing 'creative jurisprudence'.
- Outcome
- Dismissal
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- OAB/PR: Oficio sent to the Parana section of the Brazilian Bar for possible professional measures. No disposition on record. (2026-07-22)
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-03
What was fabricated or misused
- Supposed TJSP judgment with relator “Des. Fulano de Tal” — the decision treated it as AI “jurisprudência criativa” rather than a usable precedent
- ApCv 2003.001444-6, de Biguaçu, rel. Desa. Salete Silva Sommariva — cited precedent could not be located in a jurisprudence database and the state was not identified
- Unidentified TJPR ementa — no civil appeal number, relator or judgment date, so the court could not verify truth, reliability or factual fit
What the court said
“há indícios do emprego de inteligência artificial, com utilização de jurisprudência criativa (inventada) e inexistente.”
“O uso de inteligência artificial sem o mínimo cuidado para checar a veracidade das “respostas prontas” dadas pelo agente de IA é eticamente reprovável.”
“O julgado citado – que já havia sido invocado na petição inicial – , não pode ser localizado na base de dados de jurisprudência.”
“Ou seja, uma vez mais não há como conferir a veracidade e a fidedignidade da “ementa” transcrita e saber se possui correspondência com o repositório de jurisprudência desta Corte, muito menos se há identidade fática com o caso ora sob exame.”
Timeline
- Franchisor’s contract with the course provider had ended before alleged course completion
- Paraná judiciary had no business day under cited judicial decrees
- State public-employee holiday also made the appeal deadline non-business
- Plaintiff filed the principal appeal in Projudi
- Judge identified AI creative jurisprudence and ordered notice to OAB/PR
- Judge refused to hear both the principal and adhesive appeals
Why this case matters
TJPR is the Brazilian dismissal counterpart to the later TJSP fine. The Paraná judge did not impose a money sanction, but treated unverifiable precedent as a dialecticity defect: the appeal did not directly attack the judgment with usable authority. The record is also useful because it names a common pattern in Portuguese-language filings, “jurisprudência criativa,” and sends the matter to OAB/PR. Compared with TJSP 1032884-04, the response was procedural rather than punitive, but both decisions tie AI use to bar supervision.
Practice note
Brazilian appellate counsel should verify each precedent in the official court database before protocolizing an appeal. A quoted ementa should include court, case number, relator and judgment date. If the authority comes from AI or a free-model site, it should be treated as a lead only, not filed unless the official record confirms it.
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Apelacao Civel 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224 (TJSP, 36a Camara de Direito Privado)2026-08-13 · Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo, 36a Camara de Direito Privado · FineThe 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 i…
- Processo 0001601-72.2025.5.20.0005 (TRT-20, 1a Turma, Sergipe)2026-08-03 · Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 20a Regiao (Sergipe), 1a Turma · FineA 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, includ…
- P. M. M. c/ G. A., F. M. D. S.H. s/ cobro ordinario de sumas de dinero, Causa MO-14691-2021 (RS-722-2026)2026-10-01 · Cámara de Apelación en lo Civil y Comercial, Sala II, Departamento Judicial Morón (Buenos Aires Province) · DismissalIn Argentina, a Buenos Aires provincial appeals chamber in Morón declared a fee appeal deserted, with costs, because it rested on a Supreme Court precedent that could not be found. The court said likely AI hallucination…
- Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1202 (IMM-3886-26)2026-09-28 · Federal Court (Canada) · DismissalIn Canada, the Federal Court refused a late filing in a refugee judicial review because the proposed memorandum cited five cases that could not be found and misstated others. Justice Lafrenière inferred unchecked AI use…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Apelacao Civel 0035599-44.2017.8.16.0014 (TJPR)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/tjpr-0035599-44 (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.