{"id":3444,"date":"2026-09-14T09:25:39","date_gmt":"2026-09-14T14:25:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/iniciativalegal.com\/?p=3444"},"modified":"2026-09-14T09:25:39","modified_gmt":"2026-09-14T14:25:39","slug":"inteligencia-artificial-en-procesos-judiciales-en-colombia-el-precedente-de-la-corte-suprema-auto-ac739-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/iniciativalegal.com\/en\/inteligencia-artificial-en-procesos-judiciales-en-colombia-el-precedente-de-la-corte-suprema-auto-ac739-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Artificial Intelligence in Colombian Court Proceedings: The Supreme Court Sets a Precedent (Auto AC739-2026)"},"content":{"rendered":"

More and more lawyers, companies and in-house legal teams are using generative artificial intelligence tools to draft briefs, memorials, legal opinions and appeals. Colombia's Supreme Court of Justice has just set the professional-responsibility standard that governs that use in Auto (Order) AC739-2026<\/strong> of February 13, 2026 (case file 11001-02-03-000-2025-05324-00), issued by the Civil, Agrarian and Rural Cassation Chamber<\/strong>, with Justice Martha Patricia Guzm\u00e1n \u00c1lvarez<\/strong>\u00a0as rapporteur. The ruling sanctioned a lawyer for filing an extraordinary appeal for review based on nonexistent case law generated by an artificial intelligence system, setting a precedent that every legal practitioner in Colombia should know.<\/p>\n

The Facts: Ten Case-Law Citations That Did Not Exist<\/h2>\n

The case arose from an extraordinary appeal for review filed against a June 6, 2025 ruling of the Civil-Family Chamber of the Superior Tribunal of Villavicencio<\/strong>. The brief supporting the appeal cited ten judicial decisions that, as certified by the Court's Reporting Office, do not exist in any official repository: six fabricated cassation rulings (identified as SC-4061\/2020, SC-5092\/2019, SC-1730\/2018, SC-2090\/2021, SC-1587\/2017 and SC-4021\/2020) and two Constitutional Court rulings with falsely attributed content, in addition to a misrepresentation of Article 250 of the General Code of Procedure. When the attorney filed a brief to cure the defect, instead of correcting the error he added four additional fabricated citations. Only afterward did he acknowledge that the brief had been prepared using an artificial intelligence program, without any subsequent verification.<\/p>\n

The Standard Set by the Court: The Duty of Truthfulness and the Duty of Verification<\/h2>\n

The Chamber explains that citing a legal source is not a neutral act: \"a lawyer who cites a source of law does something more than reproduce a normative statement: at the same time, he makes an implicit assertion about that statement's membership in the legal order\"<\/strong>. From that duty of truthfulness, the Court holds, follows a correlative duty of verification: checking the authenticity of every source against the official legislation and case-law repositories \u2014 which are public, free and immediately accessible \u2014 before introducing it into a proceeding. The ruling also notes that this obligation cannot be delegated: \"the role of guarantor of the truthfulness of the sources presented cannot be delegated. Verifying that they exist and that they say what the brief attributes to them belongs to the irreducible core of the lawyer's professional responsibility\"<\/strong>. A lawyer cannot excuse this by claiming that the drafting was left to assistants, interns or technological tools.<\/p>\n

AI Does Not Excuse Liability: The Risk of \"Willful Blindness\"<\/h2>\n

The Court emphasizes that the duty of verification is technologically neutral, but that the diligence required intensifies when generative artificial intelligence tools are used, given their documented tendency to produce plausible-sounding but false legal citations \u2014 so-called \"hallucinations.\" On this point, the ruling states: \"the professional cannot delegate legal judgment to the system, nor substitute his own judgment for the model's. Without exception, the tool assists; the lawyer is the one who decides, structures and is accountable\"<\/strong>, adding that \"what is inadmissible is acting as an uncritical intermediary: receiving the generated text and carrying it into the proceeding without any cross-check against the official repositories\"<\/strong>, because \"the model cannot know when it is fabricating content: that verification inescapably falls on the user\"<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The Ruling: Procedural Recklessness and a Fine of 15 Monthly Minimum Wages<\/h2>\n

Based on Article 79 of the General Code of Procedure<\/strong> (numerals 79.1 and 79.6), the Court held that the attorney had engaged in procedural recklessness (\"temeridad procesal\")<\/strong> and, pursuant to Article 81 of the same Code<\/strong>, ordered him to pay a fine of 15 monthly legal minimum wages<\/strong>, to cover the costs of the appeal, and referred certified copies to the Sectional Commission for Judicial Discipline of Bogot\u00e1<\/strong> for a disciplinary investigation. The Court acknowledged as a mitigating factor that, at the time of the events, there was no prior explicit ruling on the risks of using AI in litigation; but it aggravated the sanction because of the attorney's persistence in the error after being given an opportunity to cure it, and because of the number and pattern of the fabricated citations.<\/p>\n

What This Means for Lawyers and Companies Using AI<\/h2>\n

Auto AC739-2026 is the first sanction of its kind in Colombia and sets a clear standard for any person or organization using artificial intelligence to prepare legal documents, whether in litigation, contract drafting or internal legal opinions:<\/p>\n