AC739-2026

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 13 de febrero de 2026, CSJ (Colombia) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited as precedent in the initial brief; Relatoría found no record in official repositories; court treated as fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Inserted in the subsanation; Relatoría found no record; court treated as fabricated (subsequent addition to initial set).
• Tergiversación de norma legal. The filing attributed specific numbered causes to Article 250 CGP (numerals 5 and 7) though Article 250 concerns documentary probative indivisibility and has no such numerals; court found the attribution false.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. In the subsanation the lawyer cited Article 355.7 and 355.8 with texts that do not correspond to the authentic wording of those numerals; court found the content altered to fit the argument.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Two Constitutional Court decisions were cited with content materially different from their true subject matter (false attribution); court found the attributions incorrect.

Desenlace

Temeridad declaration; monetary fine; bar referral. Sanción económica: 1. Sanción profesional: Yes.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1526/SANCION_ABOGADO_IA.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.