Courts Warn About False Quotations Created with AI

In two recent rulings, Courts in the Cities of General Roca and Moron addressed the case of including non-existent judicial precedents—generated with artificial intelligence—in court filings.

In the first case, “M.J.L. C/ PEUGEOT CITROEN ARGENTINA S.A Y OTRA S/SUMARISIMO,” the Court of Appeals on Civil, Commercial, Family, and Mining Matters in the City of General Roca ruled on a consumer dispute concerning a defective vehicle. Beyond deciding the merits, the Court also noted irregularities in the defendant’s appellation and in the plaintiff’s answer to the appellation. In particular, the Court found that both parties had included quotations from cases that did not exist: the Court could not find them despite an exhaustive search in official databases.

Considering this, the Court observed that, although the lawyers of both parties had not expressly admitted it, the repeated appearance of false precedents suggested they used generative artificial intelligence tools to draft the filings. The Court further warned that, even when acting in good faith, lawyers cannot be excused from their professional duty to verify that the sources they invoke are true and accurate. While the Court decided not to impose sanctions, it still issued a warning, recalling professional ethics rules that require probity, truthfulness, and good faith. Finally, the Court ordered notifying the General Roca Bar Association so that it may promote among its members good practices in the use of new technologies, particularly to rigorously verify the quotations included in court documents.

In the second ruling, “ACEVEDO GERARDO GABRIEL C/ CACERES MARECO WILLIAN ARSENIO Y AGROSALTA COOPERATIVA DE SEGUROS LIMITADA S/ DAÑOS Y PERJ.AUTOM.C/LES. O MUERTE (EXC.ESTADO),” Division I of the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals in the City of Moron reviewed an appeal the plaintiff filed against the trial court judgment that had ruled in her favor. However, after analyzing the grounds for appeal, the Court observed that the grounds for the appeal consisted almost entirely of quotations of cases that could not be located, including a purported “Barrios” decision that neither corresponded to known precedents within the jurisdiction nor appeared in official records. Thus, the Court concluded that the appeal was not a specific and reasoned challenge and declared it inadmissible.

The Court highlighted that this practice was linked to the phenomenon of “hallucinations” generated by artificial intelligence, namely, that AI makes up fictitious but seemingly plausible precedents.

Although it did not impose sanctions, the Court stressed the need for ethical and responsible use of these tools, reminding that attorneys remain under a professional obligation to verify the existence and accuracy of the cases they quote. The Court also ordered notifying the local Bar Association so it encourages among its members the importance of carefully reviewing the case law and doctrine invoked in court filings, to prevent future incidents and safeguard confidence in the administration of justice.