In two recent rulings, various courts in the country warned against the uncritical use of generative artificial intelligence in legal filings, after detecting the inclusion of case law references that were either non-existent or impossible to verify. The courts noted that this practice undermines fundamental professional duties of truthfulness, integrity, and diligence.
First, on August 20, 2025, Chamber II of the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals of Rosario, Province of Santa Fe, warned the plaintiff’s attorney and notified the Rosario Bar Association after the lawyer submitted briefs containing case law suggested by a “chatbot” without verifying its existence beforehand.
The court stressed that even when acting in good faith, lawyers are not exempt from responsibility and must check the accuracy of the sources supporting their arguments. It recalled the duty of probity under the Rules of Professional Ethics (which prohibit inaccurate statements or incomplete or misleading citations) and warned of the risks posed by so-called “hallucinations” generated by these systems. As an institutional measure, the court ordered that the Rosario Bar Association be informed so it can raise awareness of the issue.
Second, on February 3, 2025, Chamber I of the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals of Morón, Province of Buenos Aires, dismissed an appeal after finding that the brief was based almost entirely on untraceable case law, cited without dates or verifiable details. The court emphasized that, under Sections 260 and 261 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, an appeal must include a concrete and reasoned critique, which is not satisfied when built upon non-existent precedents. It additionally highlighted that if generative artificial intelligence is used, attorneys must carefully review, verify, and confirm that the cited sources—whether case law, statutes, or doctrine—are real. In a preventive rather than punitive approach, the court informed the attorney involved and ordered that the Morón Bar Association promote among its members the importance of verifying citations when using such tools.
In conclusion, both courts agreed that the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice does not relieve lawyers of their ethical and procedural duties: it is their responsibility to corroborate the existence and authenticity of every citation included in their filings, even if provided by new technological tools.
Link to the decision of the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals of Rosario in Spanish
Link to the decision of the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals of Morón in Spanish.
