Top court sanctions self-represented litigants for submitting AI-generated false citations
By THE STAR STAFF
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has fined two self-represented litigants $1,000 after determining that court filings in an inheritance dispute relied on fabricated legal authorities and contained baseless accusations against members of the judiciary, in a ruling that underscores growing concerns over the misuse of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings.
In a decision issued Oct. 28, the court imposed sanctions of $500 each on siblings Víctor Manuel Velázquez Feliciano and Mercedes Velázquez Feliciano, concluding that their filings repeatedly cited nonexistent cases and misrepresented judicial precedents. The justices said the conduct appeared to be linked to AI-generated content that had not been independently verified before being submitted to the courts.
The ruling sends a clear message that people who represent themselves in court are held to the same duty of diligence and technological competence as attorneys when using artificial intelligence or other digital tools to prepare legal documents.
The case arose from litigation involving the distribution of a family estate. After their attorney withdrew from the proceedings, the petitioners elected to continue the matter without legal representation. Following a hearing, a trial judge determined they lacked sufficient knowledge of procedural rules to litigate the case on their own and ordered them to retain counsel within 30 days.
Rather than comply, the litigants challenged the ruling and launched a series of allegations against the court system. They claimed the presiding judge engaged in ethical misconduct, alleged that an official court recording had been altered, and asserted that judicial officials had manipulated the record. Although the trial judge later recused himself from the case, the Court of Appeals rejected the litigants’ arguments, prompting them to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.
After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court concluded that the petitioners had engaged in a pattern of conduct that extended beyond aggressive advocacy. According to the court, numerous filings contained fabricated legal citations, including references to nearly 25 cases that either did not exist or inaccurately described Supreme Court decisions.
Associate Justice Raúl Candelario López, writing separately in a concurring opinion, said the court determined the citations appeared to have been artificially generated through technological tools used by the litigants in preparing their submissions.
The justice emphasized that while Puerto Rico recognizes the right of individuals to represent themselves in court, that right does not relieve them of the obligation to ensure the accuracy of their filings. He noted that false citations consume judicial resources because judges and opposing parties must spend time verifying and refuting authorities that do not exist.
The court relied in part on Rules 9.4 and 44.2 of Puerto Rico’s Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorize judges to evaluate whether self-represented litigants are capable of effectively handling their cases and to impose sanctions for conduct that delays or obstructs the administration of justice.
While the opinion focuses on the misuse of artificial intelligence, the justices stressed that the technology itself is not prohibited. Instead, they drew a distinction between using AI as a drafting tool and submitting AI-generated information without confirming its accuracy.
The court warned that fabricated citations and fictitious legal authorities, regardless of whether they are generated by a lawyer or a pro se litigant, constitute an attempt to mislead the judiciary and may result in monetary sanctions or other penalties.
Associate Justice Camille Rivera Pérez echoed that concern in a separate concurrence, writing that courts should not be expected to sift through filings to identify invented legal authorities. She said parties who appear before the courts have a fundamental obligation to verify that the cases they cite actually exist.
The ruling builds on a series of recent decisions in which the Supreme Court sanctioned attorneys for submitting AI-generated false citations. By extending the same principle to self-represented parties, the court signaled that all litigants, regardless of legal training, bear responsibility for ensuring that technology-assisted filings comply with basic standards of accuracy and honesty.
