AR | Incident Report
Regulatory Action
2026-01-06
Río Negro labour court warns lawyers after brief cites AI-suspected non-existent case law
AI Model: Unspecified generative AI tool
I. Executive Summary
A labour court in Viedma (Río Negro) issued a formal warning to lawyers after a filing cited precedents that the court could not locate in official repositories.
Trade press reporting framed the drafting pattern as suggesting improper use of generative AI and referenced the province’s protocol for generative AI use by external auxiliaries.
The court stated it would not impose disciplinary sanctions in the specific case because the underlying conduct predated the relevant provincial acordada, but warned counsel to exercise heightened care going forward.
II. Key Facts
- Viedma Labour Court reviewed a labour-case filing containing precedents that could not be found in official jurisprudence repositories.
- Judges stated the writing pattern and non-verifiable citations suggested improper use of generative AI.
- The court emphasized lawyers’ duties of honesty, responsibility, good faith, and verification of cited authorities.
- The decision referenced Río Negro Superior Court Acordada No. 22/25 extending a “Good Practices” protocol for generative AI to external auxiliaries.
- The court issued an admonition but did not apply disciplinary sanctions in the specific case due to timing relative to the acordada.
III. Regulatory & Ethical Implications
Demonstrates an enforcement-adjacent posture: courts may use AI-protocol instruments (acordadas/protocols) to justify warnings, referrals, and future sanctions for counsel who file AI-generated, non-verifiable authorities.
For firms and advisors, it underscores the need for governance over AI use in submissions (citation validation workflows, record-keeping, and supervision) aligned with local court protocols.