Canary Islands court probes lawyer for AI-suggested fake citations in appeal

AI Model: Unspecified AI tool Legal TechHallucinationsJudicial EthicsSpainProcedural Good Faith

I. Executive Summary

Spain’s Canary Islands High Court (TSJC) opened a separate proceeding to examine a lawyer’s conduct after finding that an appeal brief cited multiple Supreme Court decisions and an official report that could not be verified. The court said the pattern suggested the lawyer relied on an “algorithm” without checking the existence of the cited materials. The investigation concerns a potential breach of procedural good faith and could lead to a fine and a referral to the relevant bar.

II. Key Facts

TSJC detected at least seven purported Supreme Court rulings that did not appear in available databases.
The brief also cited a CGPJ report (dated 2019) that the court said it could not confirm exists.
The criminal chamber ordered a separate file to assess responsibilities under art. 247 LEC and related LOPJ provisions.
Possible consequences include a monetary fine and referral to the professional bar for disciplinary review.

III. Regulatory & Ethical Implications

This is a clear judicial signal that “human-in-the-loop” verification is non-negotiable: using generative tools without validating citations can be framed as bad-faith litigation conduct, triggering court sanctions and downstream bar discipline. It also provides a concrete procedural hook (LEC art. 247) for courts to police negligent AI-assisted filings.

IV. Media Coverage & Sources

CGPJ / Poder Judicial es