Argentine courts analyze AI use in legal documents

In recent months, some Argentine courts have issued rulings on legal briefs in which the attorneys involved included citations of case law that, upon judicial review, were determined to be false or inaccurate, most likely generated using AI. Previously the subject of debate primarily in U.S. courts, Argentine courts are now beginning to assess the scope of lawyers' professional responsibility when employing AI technologies.

This discussion took place in three cases in different jurisdictions: the Court of Appeals in Civil, Commercial, Family, and Mining Matters of General Roca; Chamber II of the Civil and Commercial Court of Rosario; and Chamber I of the Civil and Commercial Court of Morón.

In all cases, the courts noted the submissions cited nonexistent decisions or judgments inconsistent with the transcribed text. In some cases, the precedents could not be found in any case law databases. For instance, in "Giacomino, César Adrián et al. v. Monserrat, Facundo Damián et al.," the Rosario Court of Appeals ordered a procedural measure to verify the citations and requested an explanation from the attorney, who expressly admitted having used an AI tool to prepare and reinforce his arguments. On the other hand, in "M.J.L. v. Peugeot Citroën Argentina S.A. et al.," the court issued a similar measure, but the various parties did not clarify whether they used AI tools to prepare the submissions in question. Finally, in "Acevedo, Gerardo Gabriel v. Cáceres Mareco, Willian Arsenio," although no explanations were formally required from counsel, the court concluded, based on the drafting style of the filings, that AI tools had been used.