Good faith means verification, period.
En una época en que las herramientas de inteligencia artificial comienzan a infiltrarse en la práctica jurídica, la Corte Suprema de Chile ha trazado una línea clara: la responsabilidad profesional no se delega. A fines de abril de 2026, el máximo tribunal del país sancionó por primera vez a una abogada por incluir citas doctrinales inexistentes en un escrito judicial, estableciendo que la buena fe exige verificación, no confianza ciega. El caso de Daniela Escobedo Acosta se convierte así en un hito que trasciende lo disciplinario, recordándonos que la integridad del sistema judicial descansa, en última instancia, en la honestidad de quienes lo invocan.
- Citas atribuidas a académicos reales —incluyendo a un ministro del propio tribunal— resultaron ser completamente inexistentes, sacudiendo la confianza en la veracidad de los argumentos presentados.
- La abogada sancionada alegó negligencia y no dolo, señalando que confió en documentos preparados por un tercero sin realizar la revisión sustantiva que su deber profesional exigía.
- La Tercera Sala no aceptó la distinción entre error e intención: la ley de procedimiento digital obliga a verificar la información sometida al tribunal, sin importar su origen.
- El tribunal impuso suspensión de un mes y una multa equivalente a cinco unidades tributarias mensuales, aunque los ministros no lograron unanimidad sobre cuál sanción aplicar.
- La resolución sienta el primer precedente de la Corte Suprema chilena frente a citas doctrinales falsas, y envía una advertencia directa a quienes utilizan IA para redactar escritos judiciales: el nombre en el documento es el que responde.
A fines de abril, la Corte Suprema de Chile sancionó por primera vez a una abogada por presentar citas doctrinales falsas en un recurso de casación. El caso surgió cuando el abogado Pablo Barrios, representando a Concesiones Valdivia S.A., solicitó al tribunal que ejerciera sus facultades disciplinarias contra la abogada contraria, Daniela Escobedo Acosta. Entre las referencias fabricadas figuraban obras atribuidas a Jean Pierre Matus, ministro del mismo tribunal que conocía la causa, y al académico Juan Andrés Orrego Acuña —ninguna de ellas existía en la literatura jurídica publicada.
Cuando se le pidió explicaciones, Escobedo reconoció que podían haberse colado «inexactitudes» en el documento, pero lo presentó como un error de transcripción, no como un engaño deliberado. La Tercera Sala no encontró convincente esa distinción. Apoyándose en el principio de buena fe consagrado en la Ley de Procedimiento Digital, los jueces determinaron que todo abogado tiene la obligación de verificar la información que somete al tribunal, independientemente de quién haya redactado el escrito.
La sanción combinó una suspensión de un mes con una multa de aproximadamente 400.000 pesos chilenos. Los cinco integrantes del tribunal coincidieron en la necesidad de sancionar, aunque se dividieron sobre la forma: algunos preferían solo la suspensión, otros solo la multa. Tras el fallo, Escobedo presentó un recurso de reposición en el que explicó que había asumido el caso pro bono para un amigo, quien había redactado los documentos por cuenta propia. Ella, confiando en su criterio, los revisó de manera formal antes de ingresarlos al sistema electrónico —un error grave, reconoció, pero no una mentira premeditada.
El fallo llega en un momento en que tribunales de todo el mundo enfrentan el riesgo de escritos generados con inteligencia artificial que producen citas verosímiles pero inexistentes. El mensaje de la Corte Suprema chilena es inequívoco: delegar la redacción —a un colega, a un cliente o a un algoritmo— no transfiere la responsabilidad. Quien firma el escrito responde por su contenido.
In late April, Chile's Supreme Court issued a ruling that would become the first time the nation's highest judicial body formally sanctioned a lawyer for submitting false citations—a decision that carries particular weight in an era when artificial intelligence tools are increasingly woven into legal practice.
The case began when attorney Pablo Barrios, representing Concesiones Valdivia S.A. in a cassation appeal, asked the court to use its disciplinary powers against opposing counsel Daniela Escobedo Acosta. Escobedo had included doctrinal citations in her written arguments that simply did not exist. More troubling still, some of those fabricated references were attributed to real academics—including Jean Pierre Matus, a Supreme Court minister who sat on the very panel hearing the case. The citations to Matus and fellow academic Juan Andrés Orrego Acuña appeared designed to bolster her legal position, but they had no basis in published work.
When Barrios's team raised questions about the authenticity of these sources, Escobedo was asked to clarify where she had obtained them. Her initial response was vague: she acknowledged that "inexactitudes" may have crept into the document during its preparation, but framed the problem as a transcription error rather than anything intentional. She insisted there was no effort to deceive the court or to falsely attribute ideas to specific authors—merely a lapse in care.
The Supreme Court's Third Chamber, however, was not persuaded by this distinction. The judges grounded their analysis in the principle of good faith enshrined in Chile's Digital Procedure Law, which obligates parties to verify the accuracy of information they submit and requires judges to prevent and sanction procedural fraud and abuse. The court found that Escobedo's conduct fell short of the basic professionalism and rectitude expected of lawyers appearing before the bench. Good faith, the judges wrote, demands that a lawyer actually verify the sources she cites—something Escobedo had plainly failed to do.
The court imposed two penalties: a one-month suspension from practicing law and a fine of approximately 400,000 Chilean pesos (roughly five monthly tax units). The decision was signed by Minister Adelita Ravanales, Ministers Leopoldo Llanos, Matus, and Omar Astudillo, and court officer Carlos Urquieta. Though all five agreed on the need for discipline, they disagreed on form—Ravanales and Urquieta favored only the suspension, while Llanos and Astudillo wanted only the fine.
After the ruling, Escobedo filed a motion for reconsideration in which she offered a fuller account of what had happened. She had taken the case on a pro bono basis for a friend, Ítalo de la Costa, who had drafted the legal documents himself. Trusting his professional judgment and the accuracy of his citations, she had merely reviewed the filings formally before submitting them to the court's electronic system. She acknowledged this as a grave error in judgment—a failure to conduct the substantive, rigorous review that her professional duty demanded. Yet she maintained that the mistake was one of negligence, not deliberate deception.
The ruling marks a watershed moment for Chilean jurisprudence. While the Free Competition Tribunal had previously sanctioned lawyers for citing nonexistent legal norms, this Supreme Court decision establishes the first clear precedent for how the highest court will handle false doctrinal citations. It also arrives at a moment when courts worldwide are grappling with the risks posed by AI-assisted legal writing—tools that can generate plausible-sounding citations to nonexistent sources with unsettling ease. The message from Chile's Supreme Court is unambiguous: a lawyer's responsibility to verify does not diminish simply because the work was delegated, outsourced, or assisted by technology. The obligation to ensure accuracy rests with the person whose name appears on the filing.
Citações Notáveis
My error consisted precisely in having trusted excessively and in not having conducted a substantive and rigorous review of the content of such submissions, an omission I fully recognize and for which I take complete responsibility.— Daniela Escobedo, in her motion for reconsideration
Good faith translates into the duty that the party has to verify the effectiveness of the information it provides to the court, which it did not do.— Chile's Supreme Court, Third Chamber
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter that one of the fabricated citations was attributed to a judge sitting on the panel that would decide the case?
It raises the stakes considerably. If Escobedo had cited a scholar with no connection to the court, it might read as careless. But citing a sitting judge—especially one who will rule on your case—creates an appearance that you're trying to leverage his authority or create a conflict of interest. It makes the negligence look more calculated, even if it wasn't.
She claimed she was just reviewing the work of someone else. Does that excuse her?
The court said no. And I think the logic is sound: when you sign your name to a legal document and file it with a court, you're certifying its accuracy. You can't outsource that responsibility, even to a trusted colleague. The moment you submit it, it's yours.
But couldn't AI have generated these citations? Isn't that the real story here?
The ruling doesn't explicitly say AI was used, and we don't know if it was. But that's precisely why this decision matters. The court is establishing that the source of the error—whether human carelessness, delegation, or algorithmic hallucination—doesn't change the lawyer's duty. Good faith means verification, period.
One month suspension and a fine. Is that harsh?
The court was divided on that question. Two judges wanted only the suspension, two wanted only the fine. But consider what the court is signaling: this isn't a minor slip. It's a breach of the basic trust that allows courts to function. If lawyers can submit false citations without serious consequence, the entire system corrodes.
What happens next? Will other courts follow this?
That's the open question. This is the first time Chile's Supreme Court has formally addressed it, so lower courts will likely look to this ruling as guidance. And as AI tools become more prevalent in legal practice, other countries will probably face the same issue. This ruling gives them a template.