Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Regulatory Action

Canary Islands high court fines a lawyer 420 euros for an appeal citing 48 non-existent judgments that it says a general-purpose AI tool generated

The Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) fined a lawyer 420 euros for breaching the duty of truthfulness and good faith, after an appeal the lawyer filed contained 48 citations of Supreme Court judgments and a report of the General Council of the Judiciary that did not exist. According to the court's order, as described in its press release of 13 February 2026, the lawyer used a general-purpose AI tool to draft the appeal and did not check a single citation against the free public case-law database; the court's documentalist verified that the references were false. The court referred the matter to the lawyer's bar association for possible disciplinary action and set the fine at about half the annual cost of a legal-specific AI tool, taking into account that the lawyer admitted the facts and expressed remorse. The court had first flagged the citations in its judgment dismissing the appeal, reported on 5 January 2026, which opened a separate proceeding. The lawyer told the court of comments and mockery from colleagues after the case became public.

AI system
Unidentified AI drafting tool
Occurred
2026
Reported
5 January 2026
Event location
Spain
What the AI did
Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Financial LossLegal HarmReputational Harm
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Justice · Work
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts
5 claims: 3 documented, 2 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: A general-purpose generative AI tool (not a legal-specific product, per the court) used to draft a criminal appeal; the tool is not named

What Happened

The appeal. A lawyer acting for a private prosecution party appealed to the Criminal Chamber of the TSJC against a judgment of the Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife. According to the court's judgment, as reported by Expansión on 5 January 2026, the appeal cited at least seven Supreme Court judgments the chamber could not find in the available databases, many others of a similar kind, and a report of the General Council of the Judiciary that the court had no record of. The judgment dismissed the appeal, said the findings suggested the lawyer had relied without further review on what the algorithm proposed, and ordered a separate proceeding to establish the lawyer's responsibility.

The fine. In the order imposing the sanction, described in the court's press release of 13 February 2026, the chamber found that the lawyer used a general-purpose AI tool, not one designed for legal work, to insert 48 citations of Supreme Court judgments and a General Council report that did not exist, as verified by the TSJC's documentalist. It found that the lawyer did not check the case numbers, dates or identifiers and did not compare the tool's output with the free public case-law database (Cendoj). It fined the lawyer 420 euros and sent the decision to the bar association for possible disciplinary action.

Mitigation. The court set the fine at about half the annual subscription cost of a legal-specific AI tool, which it said would probably have avoided the result, taking into account that the lawyer admitted the facts, expressly accepted responsibility and showed apparently sincere remorse.

Publicity. According to La Voz de Lanzarote's account of the order, the lawyer complained that the case's publication made the lawyer identifiable and led to comments and mockery in professional circles, including lawyers' group chats; the court said its communication office had acted properly.

Limits. The order itself was not read; it is known from the court's press release and press accounts. The AI tool is not named. No source says the false citations changed the outcome of the appeal.

Reported harm

According to the TSJC, a lawyer whose appeal contained 48 false citations generated with a general-purpose AI tool was fined 420 euros and referred to the bar association; the lawyer told the court of mockery in professional circles once the case became public.

Outcome

Resolved

TSJC Criminal Chamber order (reported 13 February 2026): fine of 420 euros for conduct contrary to the duty of truthfulness and good faith and abuse of the public justice service; decision and background sent to the lawyer's bar association for possible disciplinary action. The outcome of that referral is not reported.

What remains unknown

  • The name of the AI tool.
  • The dates on which the appeal was filed and the sanction order was issued (the order was announced on 13 February 2026). The appeal predates the judgment that Expansión on 5 January 2026 says was notified days earlier, so the false citations were probably filed before 2026; the 2026 date recorded here is the year of the sanction.
  • Whether the false citations affected the outcome of the appeal; no source says so.
  • The outcome of the bar association referral.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. The TSJC's order, as set out in the court's press release, finds that the lawyer used a general-purpose AI tool to insert 48 citations of Supreme Court judgments and a General Council report that did not exist, and that the lawyer did not check the tool's output against the case-law database. The tool's output reached the lawyer and went into the appeal (communicated_with); the court fined the lawyer for it. The lawyer admitted the facts. The tool is not named.

5 claims: 3 documented, 2 reported. What the statuses mean

Documented The Criminal Chamber of the TSJC fined a lawyer 420 euros for conduct contrary to the duty of truthfulness and good faith, committed by inserting up to 48 false case-law citations generated by AI into an appeal, and sent its decision to the lawyer's bar association for possible disciplinary action.

Causal attribution. The court's own release on its order.

  • poderjudicial.es(opens in new tab) supports · Spanish
    ha impuesto una multa de 420 euros a un abogado como autor de una actuación contraria al deber de veracidad y a las reglas de la buena fe con abuso del servicio público de la Justicia, consumada al introducir hasta 48 citas de jurisprudencia falsas, generadas por Inteligencia Artificial, en un recurso de apelación; el Tribunal acuerda dar traslado de su decisión y de los antecedentes al Colegio de Abogados del afectado
Documented According to the order, the lawyer used a general-purpose AI tool, not a legal-specific one, to insert 48 citations of Supreme Court judgments and a General Council of the Judiciary report that did not exist, as the TSJC's documentalist verified, and did not check the tool's output against the case-law databases.

Causal attribution. The court's findings in its order as set out in its release; the lawyer admitted the facts (c3).

  • poderjudicial.es(opens in new tab) supports · Spanish
    se valió de una herramienta de Inteligencia Artificial “generalista” -es decir, no de una solución específicamente diseñada en el ámbito jurídico- para introducir en la fundamentación hasta 48 citas de sentencias del Tribunal Supremo y un informe del Consejo General del Poder Judicial que supuestamente avalaban su postura en el pleito y que, en realidad, no existían, según verificó la documentalista del TSJC; no verificó los datos de salida de la herramienta de IA con las bases de datos de jurisprudencia
Documented The court set the fine at about half the annual subscription cost of a legal-specific AI tool, taking into account that the lawyer admitted the facts, expressly accepted responsibility and expressed apparently sincere remorse.

Causal attribution. The court's release.

  • poderjudicial.es(opens in new tab) supports · Spanish
    420 euros, la mitad del coste aproximado de una suscripción anual a una herramienta de Inteligencia Artificial específicamente jurídica; admitió los hechos y reconoció su responsabilidad de forma expresa, manifestando un arrepentimiento “aparentemente sincero”
Reported In a judgment dismissing the appeal, reported on 5 January 2026, the TSJC found that it cited at least seven Supreme Court rulings and a report absent from the databases, said the lawyer appeared to have relied without further review on what the algorithm proposed, and ordered a separate proceeding on the lawyer's responsibility.

Causal attribution. Expansión's report of the court's press note and its quotations from the judgment.

  • expansion.com(opens in new tab) supports · Spanish
    el letrado citó al menos siete resoluciones del Supremo y un informe que no aparecen en las bases de datos; fio su trabajo, sin mayor revisión, a lo que el algoritmo le propuso; desestima el recurso de la acusación particular contra la absolución; la sala ordena formar pieza separada
Reported In the sanction proceeding the lawyer complained that the case's publication made the lawyer identifiable and led to comments and mockery in professional circles, including lawyers' group chats; the court said its communication office had not acted improperly.

Causal attribution. The lawyer's submissions as recorded in the order, reported by La Voz de Lanzarote; the mockery followed the publicity about the AI citations.

  • lavozdelanzarote.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    regretted that his identity had been revealed when the case became public; he had been the object of “comments and mockery in different professional environments, including group chats of lawyers of which I am a part”; it sees itself obliged to make clear that the Communication Office did not incur in any reprehensible conduct

Sources

3 sources inspected, from 2 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Spanish on 2026-10-16 from the Poder Judicial website (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Dated 13 February 2026 in the page metadata. Applies to s1.

Read on 2026-10-16 (HTTP 200) in La Voz de Lanzarote's English edition, a translation of its Spanish report; its account repeats the court's release and adds passages from the order on the lawyer's submissions. Published 13 February 2026. Applies to s2.

Read in Spanish on 2026-10-16 (HTTP 200); quoted passages were translated by the research agent (an AI). Published 5 January 2026; reports the TSJC's press note and quotes its judgment. Applies to s3.

Event countries: Spain. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Spain.

The appeal was filed with, and the fine imposed by, the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (Spain) against a judgment of the Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife. Where the lawyer lives is not recorded from a press headline.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-16: Published as a concrete adverse consequence of AI use: the TSJC's order, as described in its release, finds that a general-purpose AI tool generated the 48 false citations the lawyer filed, and fines the lawyer 420 euros with a referral to the bar association.

People described

A lawyer who drafted a criminal appeal to the TSJC with a general-purpose AI tool and was fined for its false citations

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the lawyer fined by the TSJC. The client's position is not described as affected by the false citations, so the client is not counted.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#spain#legal-profession#hallucinated-citations#court-fine#bar-referral

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Canary Islands high court fines a lawyer 420 euros for an appeal citing 48 non-existent judgments that it says a general-purpose AI tool generated. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-canary-islands-high-court-fines-lawyer-for-appeal-citing-48-false-judgments-generated-by-ai

BibTeX

@misc{2026_canary_islands_high_court_fines_lawyer_for_appeal_citing_48_false_judgments_generated_by_ai,
  title = {Canary Islands high court fines a lawyer 420 euros for an appeal citing 48 non-existent judgments that it says a general-purpose AI tool generated},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-canary-islands-high-court-fines-lawyer-for-appeal-citing-48-false-judgments-generated-by-ai}
}

Related cases

Medium Unidentified AI drafting tool

Former federal prosecutor in North Carolina publicly reprimanded after admitting that a brief with fabricated quotations was drafted with AI; he lost his post

In December 2025 an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a response brief for the Department of Defense in a self-represented veteran's lawsuit over health-insurance coverage. The plaintiff identified fabricated quotations and misdescribed case holdings in it. The attorney first attributed the errors to an unfinalized draft filed by mistake. On 2 March 2026 Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the 10 March hearing the attorney, Rudy Renfer, said under oath that he had accidentally overwritten his draft, panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft the brief, and had not verified the cases it cited; he said he had resigned after 17 years in the office, and Courthouse News reported he was terminated the next day. On 28 April 2026 the court issued a public reprimand instead of a fine, writing that his reputation was in tatters and that his job loss already exceeded the usual fines.

Medium Unidentified AI drafting tool

Massachusetts federal court revokes an out-of-state lawyer's admission and orders fees after briefs with false citations; the lawyer admitted AI drafted one

On 25 September 2026 a judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a defence motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against a California-barred lawyer admitted for one case (pro hac vice) to represent the plaintiff. The court found that an opposition the lawyer filed on 21 November 2025 was replete with inaccurate citations, including a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation, and that later oppositions cited a non-existent case. In response to the court's order to show cause, the lawyer admitted using AI to draft the first opposition and explained a belief that the enterprise-level AI software in use did not hallucinate cases. The court revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered the lawyer's firm to pay the defendants' reasonable fees and costs, capped at $10,000. The order does not name the AI product.

Low Unidentified AI drafting tool

Colorado federal court fines two MyPillow defence lawyers $3,000 each over a brief with fabricated citations; lead counsel had admitted running it through AI

In the defamation case Coomer v. Lindell in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, a brief that lawyers for Mike Lindell and MyPillow filed on 25 February 2025 contained nearly thirty defective citations, including citations of cases that do not exist. At a conference on 21 April 2025 lead counsel Christopher Kachouroff told Judge Nina Y. Wang that he had drafted the motion and then 'ran it through AI' and had not personally checked the citations. Counsel later said a wrong draft had been filed by mistake; the court was not persuaded. On 7 July 2025 the court found that he and co-counsel Jennifer DeMaster had violated Rule 11 and fined each $3,000 (Kachouroff jointly with his law firm). The court did not sanction Lindell or his companies.

Low Unidentified AI drafting tool

Austria: Federal Administrative Court fines a litigant EUR 200 for hundreds of pages of submissions it found were AI-generated and unlabelled

In a pending appeal against a decision of Austria's data protection authority, the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) found that the appellant had filed hundreds of pages of statements and attachments within less than four months that were obviously created exclusively with large-language-model text programs and not labelled as AI-generated. In a decision of 1 September 2026 the court imposed a EUR 200 penalty for wanton use of the court, holding that the AI-assisted filings repeated the same complaints, brought no new facts or evidence and ignored the EU labelling duty for AI-generated content. The court announced it as the first such penalty for AI submissions. The appellant is anonymised and the appellant's response is not reported.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents