AI Regulation Tracker / Court decision
Brazil Labor Court Fines a Party Over AI-Fabricated Jurisprudence and Refers Counsel to the Bar
The 6th Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region (TRT-2) in Sao Paulo imposed a bad-faith fine after a defense brief cited fictitious case law at least eight times, and it sent an official referral to the OAB-SP bar for disciplinary review. The panel ruled unanimously on February 5, 2026.
A Sao Paulo labor court found that a defendant's brief cited jurisprudencia ficticia, fabricated case law, at least eight times. Counsel admitted using generative AI and initially blamed an intern team working through a platform, then retracted that account. The court applied a litigancia de ma-fe fine of five percent of the updated claim value against the defendant under article 793-C of the CLT, payable to the employee, and it issued an oficio referring counsel to the OAB-SP bar for disciplinary review. It also removed a separate bad-faith fine that a lower court had placed on the employee. No lawyer was suspended or disbarred by this ruling. The court did not sanction the software. It sanctioned the conduct of the party and the person who signed the filing.
Regulatory briefing
- Court
- Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 2a Regiao (TRT-2), 6a Turma, Sao Paulo
- Process
- 1001128-84.2024.5.02.0044, decided on embargos de declaracao with modificative effect
- Rapporteur
- Juiz Convocado Fernando Cesar Teixeira Franca, unanimous
- Dates
- Judged February 5, 2026; acordao signed February 13, 2026
- Sanction
- Litigancia de ma-fe fine of five percent of the updated claim value under CLT article 793-C, imposed on the defendant (reclamada) and paid to the employee
- Referral
- Oficio to the OAB-SP for disciplinary review, grounded in CLT article 793-B (II, V), article 32 of Law 8.906/1994, and OAB Recomendacao 001/2024
What the court actually held
The defense brief cited jurisprudence that does not exist. The panel counted fabricated authorities at least eight times, precedents attributed to real courts that those courts never issued. When the court pressed on the source, counsel admitted that generative AI had been used and, in one account, attributed the work to an intern team operating through a platform named "jusfy," an explanation that was later retracted. The panel treated the fabricated citations as an abuse of the right to litigate rather than an honest mistake.
The remedy was specific. The court imposed a litigancia de ma-fe fine of five percent of the updated value of the claim under article 793-C of the CLT, and it directed that the fine be paid to the employee. It grounded the bad-faith finding in article 793-B, subsections II and V. Separately, it ordered an oficio, an official referral, to the OAB-SP so the bar could review the conduct of counsel under article 32 of Law 8.906/1994 and OAB Recomendacao 001/2024. The panel also cited a supporting decision from TRT-7 in Ceara, process 0000702-38.2024.5.07.0016.
The part most coverage will miss
The same ruling removed a bad-faith fine that a lower court had placed on the employee. So this was not a court reflexively punishing whoever lost. It reallocated the penalty toward the side that put fabricated law in front of it. That detail matters because it shows the court reasoning about conduct, not outcome. The fabricated authorities came from the defense, so the defense carried the sanction, and the employee who had been penalized below was relieved of that fine on the modificative embargos.
Who this affects
This is a Brazilian labor court applying Brazilian procedural law, the CLT and the statute that governs the legal profession. It does not bind a court in Sao Paulo the way a higher tribunal would, and it certainly does not bind anyone outside Brazil. Read wider, though, the logic is the same one showing up in courtroom after courtroom. A lawyer who files fabricated authority owns the filing, whatever tool produced the draft. This case is distinct from the fabricated-citation matters at TRT-23 in Mato Grosso, at the TJPR, at the TST, and at the STJ. It is one more data point in a pattern that now spans multiple Brazilian courts and several countries.
Why it reaches past Brazil
The Brazilian facts rhyme with a line of US cases that started with Mata v. Avianca in 2023, where a federal judge in New York sanctioned lawyers after a filing cited cases that did not exist. Since then US courts have issued a steady run of orders sanctioning attorneys for AI-fabricated citations. The through line is not the jurisdiction and not the specific rule. It is the duty. The tool does not carry the obligation to verify. The person who signs the filing does. A Brazilian panel citing the CLT and a US judge citing Rule 11 are reaching the same place from different statutes. I would not overstate it into a single global standard, because the mechanics differ. What travels is the principle. If your name goes on it, you answer for what is in it.
An AI tool can draft, but it cannot verify, and it cannot hold a license. If your signature stands behind a filing, confirm that every authority in it is real and says what you claim, before it goes out. Blaming an intern, a platform, or the model does not move that duty off the person who signed. This is now the settled expectation across Brazilian courts and US courts alike.
- Primary source
- Acordao, TRT-2, 6a Turma, Process 1001128-84.2024.5.02.0044 (official PDF)
- Court
- Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 2a Regiao, Sao Paulo
- How to verify
- Open the acordao PDF: the header confirms the 6a Turma, the process number 1001128-84.2024.5.02.0044, and the rapporteur; the ementa and dispositivo set out the five percent litigancia de ma-fe fine under CLT article 793-C and the oficio to the OAB-SP.
Frequently asked
What did the TRT-2 decide in this case?
On February 5, 2026, the 6th Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region in Sao Paulo unanimously found that a defense brief in process 1001128-84.2024.5.02.0044 cited fictitious case law at least eight times. It imposed a litigancia de ma-fe fine of five percent of the updated claim value on the defendant under article 793-C of the CLT, payable to the employee, and referred counsel to the OAB-SP bar for disciplinary review.
Was a lawyer suspended or disbarred?
No. This ruling imposed a monetary bad-faith fine on the defendant and issued an oficio, an official referral, to the OAB-SP so the bar could review the conduct of counsel. Any disciplinary decision is for the OAB to make separately. The court also removed a bad-faith fine that a lower court had placed on the employee.
Does using AI excuse the fabricated citations?
Not according to this panel. Counsel admitted using generative AI and at one point attributed the work to an intern team through a platform, an account that was later retracted. The court still treated the fabricated authorities as bad-faith litigation. The duty to verify what is filed stays with the person who signs, not the software.
- The verification discipline this case turns on, a human check before AI-assisted work ships, is the spine of The Leveraged Attorney.
- Not sure where to start? Take the two-minute quiz.