Fernando Betancourt Gómez v. Colegio de Profesionales

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

El 22 de agosto de 2025, Puerto Rico (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Motion attributed a non-existent Suárez v. CMI Caribe, 180 DPR 367, 376 (2010) and quoted the Tribunal Supremo text — court found the citation and quoted text fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Motion cited Otero-Burgos v. Inter Med Supplies, Inc., 137 DPR 841, 848 (1995) with an attributed Supreme Court quote that does not exist; court found the citation fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Motion cited Pérez v. Horizon Lines, 2020 TSPR 61 and attributed a textual quote of the Tribunal Supremo that the court could not locate; found fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Motion cited Rosado v. ELA, 2004 TSPR 13 and attributed a quotation about Ley 115 that does not appear in the reported decision; court treated the citation as fictitious.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Motion relied on Colón v. Romero Barceló, 112 DPR 573 (1982) (a real decision) but attributed a specific quoted formulation that the court determined does not appear in that opinion.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Motion cited Ramos Lozada v. ELA, 174 DPR 650 (2008) and attributed a quoted formulation on qualified immunity that the court could not find; treated as fictitious.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Repeated misnaming of a known U.S. Supreme Court case as 'Ashcroft v. Global, 556 US 662 (2009)' instead of Ashcroft v. Iqbal — court noted this as a likely technological-generation or transcription error.

Desenlace

Trial court imposed a monetary sanction of $1,000 on the lawyers for causing unjustified delay; referred the lawyers to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court for disciplinary evaluation; judge inhibited from cases involving those lawyers and case to be reassigned.. Sanción económica: 1000 USD. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/832/Orden_TPI_-_SJ_sanciones.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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