IT | Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia, sezione quinta
Docket: 03054/2025 reg. ric.
03348/2025 reg. prov. coll. • first instance
2025-10-21
Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia, sezione quinta — sentenza n. 03348/2025 (reg. ric. 03054/2025)
Unknown / Not Disclosed (disclosed ai use) ai-assisted legal researchnon-pertinent authorities citedno human verification of ai outputs
I. Executive Summary
The tribunal found that the decisions cited in support of the claimant’s arguments were not pertinent and that the quoted holdings were referable to other jurisprudential contexts.
During the hearing, counsel stated that the case-law research had been carried out using artificial-intelligence systems.
The tribunal treated the unverified use of AI outputs as inconsistent with counsel’s duties of loyalty and probity, warning that AI-based research can yield erroneous results (including so-called hallucinations) and must be checked.
It dismissed the case, ordered costs against the claimant, and directed that the judgment be transmitted to the Milan bar council for an evaluation of competence concerns.
II. Conduct Analysis
Counsel relied on an AI system to perform case-law research and used the resulting citations/holdings in the written submissions.
The tribunal found the cited decisions and maxims to be non-pertinent and treated the lack of verification as a breach of professional duties in litigation.
III. Legal Foundations
Italian code of civil procedure, article 88 (duty of loyalty and probity, pplied in administrative proceedings)
Milan bar council guidance on verifying AI-assisted legal research outputs (2024)
IV. Key Facts
1) The tribunal stated that all decisions cited to support the alleged illegitimacy were not pertinent, and that the maxims quoted in the brief were often attributable to other contexts.
2) In oral discussion, counsel explained that the jurisprudence search was performed through AI systems.
3) The tribunal referenced professional guidance stressing that AI-assisted legal research outputs must be verified because AI systems can produce erroneous results (including hallucinations) that may appear coherent but are incorrect.
4) The tribunal ordered the secretariat to transmit the judgment to the Milan bar council for assessment of competence issues raised by the AI-driven research/citation conduct.
V. Consequences & Sanction
1) The case was dismissed.
2) Litigation costs were awarded against the claimant in favour of the respondent administration (amount redacted in the published copy).
3) The judgment was transmitted to the Milan bar council for evaluation of competence concerns related to the AI-based research/citations.